[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> As for the cache. I agree, ideally the consumers shouldn't need to know 
>> that a cache exists. If that's the case though, then we need to invest 
>> time and energy (eventually not saying right this moment) into good 
>> cache management which handles both short and long running processes, 
>> low and high memory conditions, as well as covering the different use 
>> patterns between install, image-update, info, list, possibly search in 
>> the future, etc... I believe we can develop that structure, but it's not 
>> trivial work. Until we have that in place, I'd argue that providing a 
>> switch is better than forcing everyone into the exact same box.
>>     
>
> I'm not sure it's safe to make this assumption until we have a better
> understanding of all the things we're trying to do in evaluate.  I've
> heard some talk of eventually switching to a serializable format that
> would allow us to perform the evaulation work in chunks, presumably
> saving state along the way.  An approach like this could obviate the
> need for caching altogether.
>
> -j
>   
Fair enough, there may be solutions other than caching that solve this 
problem as well. I'd missed mentions of a serializable approach. If we 
choose caching as a long term approach (which I thought we had) then I 
still believe we'll need to think about how to manage it.

Brock
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss

Reply via email to