Mikael, Normally expiration shouldn't affect writing to the persistent storage in any way. The only possible problem I see here, is when you put value into a cache, then try to get it after it is expired, but not yet persisted. In this case you may get null instead of an actual value.
I suggest you to check this behaviour and report, if anything doesn't work as expected. Denis ср, 3 янв. 2018 г. в 15:17, Mikael <[email protected]>: > If I put an item in the cache and the expiration time is set shorter than > the write behind delay, the item will expire before it has been written to > the cache, will the expiration handler make sure that the cache entry is > written to storage before it removes it ? > > Same thing if I use setWriteBehindFlushSize(), then I don't know when any > modified entries are saved to storage so they may expire before they are > written to storage. > > Den 2018-01-03 kl. 12:55, skrev Denis Mekhanikov: > > Hi Mikael! > > Yes, this is fine. Expiration policy is intended to remove those entries > from memory, that are saved to the persistent data storage. > So, if you query expired data one more, it will be loaded from persistence. > > > will any items in the cache that expire and have been modified be saved > before they are removed from the cache ? > Could you clarify this? I didn't really understand the question. > > Denis > > ср, 3 янв. 2018 г. в 14:23, Mikael <[email protected]>: > >> Is it ok to use both third party persistence (setWriteBehindEnabled( >> true)) on a cache and also have an expiration policy set at the same >> time, will any items in the cache that expire and have been modified be >> saved before they are removed from the cache ? >> >> >> >> >
