On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Bart van der Schans <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Alexander Klimetschek <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> I would also first find the right persistence architecture and care >>> about what caches we need later (and avoid them as much as possible). >> >> Agreed. Ideally (not sure if that's feasible) we'd push all caching >> down below the unified persistence layer. > > If the persistence architecture will be plugable like now you'll never > have any garantees that the persistence layer will cache anything and > even read operations can become quite expensive or slow. In that case, > caching just "above" the persistence layer like we do now with the > BundleCache would make a lot of sense.
BundleCache is not above, it's part of the persistence layer. btw, the persistence architecture should IMO not be plugable in the common sense, i.e. an operator shouldn't be able to switch them. the persistence managers in the current architecture aren't plugable either, for a good reason. cheers stefan > > For such a cache I do see benefits of using existing cache solutions > that provide monitoring, management and clustering. > > Regards, > Bart >
