David E Jones wrote: > On Mar 22, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Adam Heath wrote: > >> Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: >>> hi Adam, >>> >>> Thanks for your work. Cache layer is critical for ofbiz as ERP system. >>> >>> Just one quick question: There are a lot of cache frameworks (Personally I >>> like Apache JCS very much) out there. Why ofbiz has to have its own >>> implement? >>> >>> In my opinion, we have two ways to reduce bugs. Write more test codes, or >>> write less product codes. Maybe we can replace ofbiz components with some >>> existing components (say cache) or separate ofbiz components as sub projects >>> or just totally new project to attract more projects to use (say, entity >>> engine). >> I've looked at ehcache, and have plans to convert to that eventually. >> First, however, is to get our code functionting correctly, with no >> bugs, and with good test cases on the existing interface(UtilCache), >> then the implementation underneath can be switch, while keeping the >> same set of test cases. > > I looked around a bit recently to see if there was a cache project that could > replace the UtilCache stuff. > > OSCache and Ehcache both look pretty good, and Jakarta JCS looks okay, and of > the various I read about Ehcache looks like the most feature-rich (especially > for distributed caches and such). Ehcache also tracks statistics much like > the OFBiz UtilCache stuff does. > > None of these appear to support soft-reference cache entries, but maybe > that's not a big deal and it would be better to do size/entries limiting > instead anyway (they all have good eviction algorithms). > > Are there any other cache projects that other people like? > > Should we deprecate the soft-reference support in order to more easily plugin > a separate cache library?
ehcache has soft-ref support. Do a google search for 'ehcache softreference' Replacing UtilCache is not a good plan. It's best to keep that api(with maybe a small change, if needed). Then swap out what UtilCache does under the scenes, based on what we decide. But, as I said, before we can do that, we need to test the current design, so that when/if we do change, we can know that we haven't broken anything that's already being tested.
