This project is read-only.

Alternate Object Cache Handling

Coordinator
Mar 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM
I have an alternate object caching model that I have extracted from some old code.

The main differences are that it does not allow the user to manage object names and instead infers them from the Caller.

Is it worth adding this for feedback and discussion (with both models to be consolidated later) or to just focus on the object cache handling we already have.

I any very wary about having multiple methods of doing the same thing so wanted to get some opinions before I go adding anything in.

Hayden
Coordinator
Mar 11, 2009 at 1:31 PM
I definitely think we should only have one method, to avoid any confusion. As far as I recall, the current implementation does have an overload for a user to specify their own key, but this is not exposed to Excel. If you think your implementation is more solid (and it probably is), then I don't mind you changing it, I have no attachment to the way it currently is. Otherwise, send me the code and let me see how you have implemented it, and we can decide from there.


On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM, hayden_k_smith <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:

From: hayden_k_smith

I have an alternate object caching model that I have extracted from some old code.

The main differences are that it does not allow the user to manage object names and instead infers them from the Caller.

Is it worth adding this for feedback and discussion (with both models to be consolidated later) or to just focus on the object cache handling we already have.

I any very wary about having multiple methods of doing the same thing so wanted to get some opinions before I go adding anything in.

Hayden

Read the full discussion online.

To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (ExcelDnaContrib@discussions.codeplex.com)

To start a new discussion for this project, email ExcelDnaContrib@discussions.codeplex.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe or change your settings on codePlex.com.

Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com




--
Regards,
Kevin Trethewey

Driven Software

tel:     +27 (0) 82 579 9154
fax:    +27 (0) 82 131 579 9154
email: kevint@drivensoftware.net
web:   http://www.drivensoftware.net
blog:   http://kevint.drivensoftware.net
Developer
Mar 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Any reason why you can't just put in both for now...

CacheManagerSimple
CacheManagerExtended

and in CacheFunctions.cs you use a Factory to choose your CacheManager...

CacheManagerSimple can then be removed later.
Coordinator
Mar 12, 2009 at 1:20 PM
That would probably be the right pattern to implement it with, but what are the factors for a person to choose simple or extended? I don't really see enough functional difference between the two to need to keep both...



On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:14 PM, incred <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:

From: incred

Any reason why you can't just put in both for now...

CacheManagerSimple
CacheManagerExtended

and in CacheFunctions.cs you use a Factory to choose your CacheManager...

CacheManagerSimple can then be removed later.

Read the full discussion online.

To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (ExcelDnaContrib@discussions.codeplex.com)

To start a new discussion for this project, email ExcelDnaContrib@discussions.codeplex.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe or change your settings on codePlex.com.

Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com




--
Regards,
Kevin Trethewey

Driven Software

tel:     +27 (0) 82 579 9154
fax:    +27 (0) 82 131 579 9154
email: kevint@drivensoftware.net
web:   http://www.drivensoftware.net
blog:   http://kevint.drivensoftware.net