they dont -igor
On 2/21/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i am very interested how the handle the special serialization cases. like readObject and writeObject methods or writeReplace.. johan On 2/21/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Looking forward to it! I just started checking out Terracotta today... > > One of the great things about Terracotta that I wasn't aware of > yesterday, as that Terracotta can fail over when you run out of memory > on a box. And that's kind of the same thing (not quite, but in the > same line of thought) we are trying to achieve with our new session > store implementation. The SLCSS implementation will always have the > advantage that there is unlimited back button support. For what it is > worth. But I think that even running Terracotta on the same machine - > when the Terracotta server runs out of RAM it'll start using the disk > - to prevent running out of memory is a viable option. And Terracotta > is by default a lot more efficient in how it does that than any normal > serialization based solution out there. > > Anyway, like I said, I think we should definitively look in this > direction as well. We already were in fact, but it deserves more > priority. > > Ryan, we'll be very interested to hear your experiences with it. > > Eelco >
