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