[SR-Dev] Usrloc, Databases, and Caching

[Martin Hoffmann]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/attachments/20081210/52415078/attachment.pgp