jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julien Viet <jul...@jboss.org>
Subject Re: jackrabbit deployment model 1
Date Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:38:48 GMT
usually a cache is supposed to keep object with an eviction policy.

in that case I suppose the policy is : keep no objects.

otherwise I would not call that a cache but a map or registry.

Stefan Guggisberg wrote:

>On 7/14/05, Julien Viet <julien@jboss.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>If you disable the cache then you reload everything all the time and
>>should achieve the desired effect, but performances will suffer a lot.
>>
>>By the way I disabled the cache in jackrabbit (I simple modified the
>>code to have the SharedItemCache have the put() do a noop).
>>
>>Some tests were not passing with that change. I think it is not normal
>>to have the tests failing when the cache is disabled (even if it
>>is uses a hack to make it not effective)
>>    
>>
>
>what would you expect if you'd mess around at the very core of a 
>repository/rdbms?
>
>  
>
>>Marcel Reutegger wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Julien Viet wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>because jackrabbit uses an internal cache that you cannot disable.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>and even if you would be able to disable the cache, one instance had
>>>to tell the other one that something has changed on disc. otherwise
>>>you would have to scan the filesystem all the time for possible changes.
>>>
>>>clustering is not that easy ;)
>>>
>>>regards
>>> marcel
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>--
>>Julien Viet
>>JBoss Portal Lead Developer
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>


-- 
Julien Viet
JBoss Portal Lead Developer


Mime
View raw message