And they don't have to. At least not according to what they are doing with it.
Eelco On 2/21/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 > > >
