Yes, removing Memcache from the GAE API is probably not a good idea. There must have been some reason why it was added.
What I'm skeptic about is if it will be a good idea for me to use it or if I will only be doing something unnecessary or even worse, shooting myself in the foot if the Memcache does not scale well and if my site will start to get massive traffic (my application still has very low traffic but I want to be prepared for the eventuality of an exponential traffic increase :-). On Nov 17, 9:13 am, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know if this means that each server instance has its own > > Memcache or that all the instances access a single Memcache. > > All instances access the "same" memcache - although this may be > distributed behind the scenes, I don't know about that. > > I agree with you that it would be elegant to have automatic caching, > but that would impose some limitations - currently you can memcache > anything (including complex objects), but you can only store limited > data types in the datastore; and you can do (limited) querys on the > datastore but not on memcache. > > Ideally we'd have a transparently cached queryable object store to > replace the datastore and memcache, but I guess this would be a > significant amount of development. Maybe Google should hire the Zope > guys to build it. > > Cheers! > Greg. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
