I suggest that you can encapsulate a cache interface of yourself. The main
method is 'get' and 'set' ,then you can change the implementation as you want.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4132381#4132381
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/
I didn't perform benchmark before. I am working for a enterprise application
now . The system presure is mainly on the database. The application server is
much flexable.
I think that The main adverange of treeCache is transactionable,more functions
. If you just want a simple cache with LRU po
I don't expect any significant performance drawback; it's the memory footprint
that will be bigger. Isn't it possible for you to perform benchmark? If so,
please post your figures
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4132267#4132267
Reply to the pos
Node is the basic unit of treecache, so if you catch many data in a simple
node, you are not using the facility of treecache . so ,thousands of nodes is
needed.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4132074#4132074
Reply to the post :
http://www.j
