[PATCH] Sending remaining TTL in "read"'s response

[dormando]

Dustin Sallings wrote:
> 
> On Dec 6, 2007, at 19:03, dormando wrote:
> 
>> - We discussed the alternative method of wrapping the real expiration
>> time inside your serialized object, and using that instead. We think
>> that works out better for all invovled :)
> 
> 
>     The thing I've mentioned a couple of times, but have put no effort
> into whatsoever is the ability to subscribe to an invalidation stream
> somehow.  It'd be pretty awesome to simply be notified when things
> happen that invalidate keys.
> 
>     There are obviously a few large holes that come about when one goes
> to implement such an idea (it shouldn't weigh down mutations, and
> there's the question of how to be notified when something just
> expires).  I suppose the expiration time could be skipped if the
> second-level cache *also* tracked the times.
> 
>     It'd be a hard thing to get right, but it's the right way to do a
> second-level cache.
> 

Trying to think of how to use this... If something's expired in my
cache, there're good odds it'll be requested in that same second, or
very nearterm. It's more efficient to just let it expire and recache on
its own.

What're some problems this could help resoundly solve? My lack of
creativity is embarassing.

-Dormando