On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
> Excellent, this is the right approach. Sounds like I
> need to update the documentation to say that "objects
> retrieved from the cache are not 'live,' they are
> clones. If you want to save modifications, remember to
> store them again in the cache."
yeah, that would be helpful. thanks.
> Please see my last email on the subject, but for all
> intents and purposes, I'd like caches to behave
> consistently, but we could definitely create a special
> purpose "live" memory-based cache that does what you
> want.
fair enough. when i get around to profiling, if this is an
issue, i'll see what can be done.
> However, the good news is that there isn't really a race
> on writes. Basically, the last write wins. It is tough
> to really figure out (from the cache's perspective) what
> the appropriate behavior is in all cases. So the user
> should be responsible for locking if them want it. Of
> course, that should be done through the cache API, which
> I regretfully haven't added yet.
ok. no hurry :) thanks for the help.
