10 Dec
2008
10 Dec
'08
12:53 p.m.
Henning Westerholt wrote:
indeed, usrloc is more or less just a abstraction layer on top of the DB. Some
people (e.g. we) even don't use the provided caching infrastructure because
they want to keep it simple, or extend the standard usrloc with custom
patches.
This is one of the reasons i don't really like the idea of moving the cache to
the DB layer, because this would probably increase the overhead of all DB
operations, and making the whole system more complex.
My thinking was along the line of implementing this as a separate
database backend which in turn uses the database API to write stuff into
a database if needed.
If there is a need for a generic (object) caching
facility, i think we should
rather try to use an existing implementation, perhaps something like
memcached, instead of implementing a complete new one.
Might be worth a look.
Regards,
Martin