<div>I think to make it object-oriented, you would need to the cache to store and understand an "object model" of a particular programming language, so that you could seamlessly retrieve objects and stores objects in that programming language. Memcached right now without being object oriented, can support many clients of any programming language.
</div>
<div>The memcached server could be running on C/c++ code and have clients of perl,java,.net etc...Since it stores objects in bytes and doesnt have to understand what the object is.And using network socket programming under the hood , it could read and write that object.
</div>
<div>If it has to be object oriented, then it would have to understand the object model of different types of languages for which it has to support.So I think this could be one reason why it isnt..<br> </div><br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/19/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ivan Krstiæ</b> <<a href="mailto:krstic@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu">krstic@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">zhang Jackie wrote:<br>> As we all know, memcached is a object cache. But why it is not called<br>> object-oriented cache?
<br><br>It isn't actually an object cache; it's a 'named bunches of bytes'<br>cache. Object orientation, or the lack thereof, happens at the client<br>API level -- memcached couldn't care less.<br><br>
--<br>Ivan Krstiæ <<a href="mailto:krstic@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu">krstic@solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu</a>> | GPG: 0x147C722D<br></blockquote></div><br>