why memcached is called a object cache
mathurprateek at gmail.com
Tue Dec 19 12:19:11 UTC 2006
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.
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.
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..
On 12/19/06, Ivan Krstić <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
> zhang Jackie wrote:
> > As we all know, memcached is a object cache. But why it is not called
> > object-oriented cache?
> It isn't actually an object cache; it's a 'named bunches of bytes'
> cache. Object orientation, or the lack thereof, happens at the client
> API level -- memcached couldn't care less.
> Ivan Krstić <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the memcached