One of the shiny golden nuggets I received from said slice was a
shared memory cache. It was simple, it was elegant, it was
perfect. It was also based on IPC::Shareable. GREAT idea. BAD
juju.
Just use Cache::Cache. It's faster and easier.
Now, ya see...
Once upon a time, not many
The _session_id is used as the seed for the locking semaphore.
*IF* I understood the requirements correctly, the _session_id has
to be the same FOR EVERY PROCESS in order for the locking to work
as desired, for a given shared data structure.
Only if you want to lock the whole thing,
Uhh... good point, except that I don't trust the Cache code. The AUTHOR
isn't ready to put his stamp of approval on the locking/updating.
That sort of hesitancy is typical of CPAN. I wouldn't worry about it. I
think I remember Randal saying he helped a bit with that part. In my
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 12:14:52PM -0700, Rob Bloodgood wrote:
***OH WOW!*** So, DURING the course of composing this message, I've
realized that the function expire_old_accounts() is now redundant!
Cache::Cache takes care of that, both with expires_in and max_size. I'm
leaving it in for
What about my IPC::FsSharevars? I've once mentioned it on this list,
but I don't have the time to read all list mail, so maybe I've missed
some conclusions following the discussion from last time.
I remember the post and went to find IPC::FsSharevars a while ago and was
un-intrigued when I
At 20:37 Uhr -0400 4.9.2001, Geoffrey Young wrote:
I remember the post and went to find IPC::FsSharevars a while ago and was
un-intrigued when I didn't find it on CPAN. has there been any feedback
from the normal perl module forums?
I haven't announced it on other forums (yet). (I think it's
Christian == Christian Jaeger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian I haven't announced it on other forums (yet). (I think it's
Christian more of a working version yet that needs feedback and some
Christian work to make it generally useable (i.e. under
Christian mod_perl). Which forum should I
Perrin == Perrin Harkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Uhh... good point, except that I don't trust the Cache code. The
AUTHOR isn't ready to put his stamp of approval on the
locking/updating.
Perrin That sort of hesitancy is typical of CPAN. I wouldn't worry
Perrin about it. I think I
I don't think Cache::Cache has enough logic for an atomic
read-modify-write in any of its modes to implement (for example) a
web hit counter. It has only atomic write. The last write wins
strategy is fine for caching, but not for transacting, so I can see
why Rob is a bit puzzled.
In his
