> I think non String keys will be ignored. If you want to use string keys > then you can use this hierarchical / partial removal. It is extremely > useful. I think I mentioned it in some of the documentation.
If they are not ignored they can be =] > > I have a List that I would like to cache. The objects that are in the > > list depend on a set of other objects. So I make the set of objects the > > key. Not sure how I can use a String to accomplish this easily and I > > cannot force the positions of colons. I guess I could make sure to > > remove any colons from any strings that are generated. What is the > > overhead of groups that makes all this work attractive? My understanding of the partial removals is that the colons don't matter until you actually try to do a partial removal, so as long as you don't use them colons are not a problem. Aaron? > > I was assuming CacheException would be the main/general exception thrown > > by jcs. I'm all for moving it to the top level. For that matter I > > think the interfaces should be top level with implementations pushed > > further down. I agree. I think the interfaces are a little intimidating. Pushing the key interfaces down where they are useful, and removing them where they are not, would make JCS much easier to understand. Aaron, do you have any thoughts on merging the regular and group caches? Specifically what might the performance implications of such a move be? Thanks, James -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
