At 00:15 2007-05-16, Brandon Black wrote:
While I think caching at the DBIx::Class level will be useful for some
people, I would think that a lot of users would leave it turned off
for consistency reasons. Even if you're invalidating the cache
locally on update/delete, that's local to one process.
<delurking>
Isn't that really up to the design of the cache being used?
If you use two in-memory caches (i.e. in process) for two processes, they
will become out-of-sync. So that's the wrong solution. They should use an
on-disk cache that is common to the processes.
Same for processes across machines, they shouldn't have two machine local
caches, they should use a centralized cache, or memcached, or some other
setup that is distributed across the machines.
But again, isn't that up to the cache itself (and the
configuration/deployment of it) to deal with? Not DBIC.
IMHO.
/J
_______________________________________________
List: http://lists.rawmode.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
Wiki: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/trunk/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
