Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-ojb-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 43460 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2004 12:52:56 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Feb 2004 12:52:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 15871 invoked by uid 500); 3 Feb 2004 12:52:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-ojb-user-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 15803 invoked by uid 500); 3 Feb 2004 12:52:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ojb-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "OJB Users List" Reply-To: "OJB Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list ojb-user@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 15748 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2004 12:52:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO relay2.clb.oleane.net) (213.56.31.22) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Feb 2004 12:52:41 -0000 Received: from nodulix ([81.80.231.9]) by relay2.clb.oleane.net with SMTP id i13Cqdti013955 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:52:40 +0100 From: "Guillaume Nodet" To: "OJB Users List" Subject: Memory problems using default cache Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 13:52:38 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <401F962D.5040106@apache.org> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N When using the default cache implementation, i run out of memory when performing a great amount of object storings with ojb. I saw a post some weeks ago saying that someone ran into the same problem. An idea was that the cache keys were not garbaged, even if objects were (via SoftReference). I also saw that there was an implementation of a LRU cache that was begun (ObjectCacheSoftImpl). I added the right constructor to it, and used it. It seems to work great. So my question is: will this ObjectCacheSoftImpl class will be supported, or should i continue to use my own derived implementation ? Guillaume Nodet --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org