Just got back from a Railo presentation and one of the things that I find usefull, which is not in OpenBD, is better support for caching. Well, I am aware much is already in OpenBD, but maybe a bit difficult to find. Railo has the option to cache in memory, cluster, EHCache, Infinispan, Memcached, or in database (MongoDB, CouchDB). You can simply setup caching for templates, resources, queries, sessions and in Railo 4 also functions. The last one sounds an interesting approach, caching function returnvalue based on its arguments.
Back to OpenBD. I know CFQUERY has a CACHETYPE attribute, but the manual is not very clear about what is possible with that. Same for CFCACHECONTENT, same attribute. What are our options?
Regarding sessions in DB or Memcached. In a previous post, some of you already commented to me that the better approach is to enable J2EE sessions and then setup different session storage on Tomcat/Jetty level. But a setting like "sessionstorage=memcached" would simplify that. What is against that?
Just wanted to hear what you think on the subject.
> Hi,
> Just got back from a Railo presentation and one of the things that I > find usefull, which is not in OpenBD, is better support for caching. > Well, I am aware much is already in OpenBD, but maybe a bit difficult > to find. Railo has the option to cache in memory, cluster, EHCache, > Infinispan, Memcached, or in database (MongoDB, CouchDB). You can > simply setup caching for templates, resources, queries, sessions and > in Railo 4 also functions. The last one sounds an interesting > approach, caching function returnvalue based on its arguments.
> Back to OpenBD. I know CFQUERY has a CACHETYPE attribute, but the > manual is not very clear about what is possible with that. Same for > CFCACHECONTENT, same attribute. What are our options?
> Regarding sessions in DB or Memcached. In a previous post, some of you > already commented to me that the better approach is to enable J2EE > sessions and then setup different session storage on Tomcat/Jetty > level. But a setting like "sessionstorage=memcached" would simplify > that. What is against that?
> Just wanted to hear what you think on the subject.
in Railo was really easy... you define the cache type using the
administrator and then you can specify it in the "type" value of
cacheput and cacheget functions.
Really powerful idea mixing diferent cache types upon your needs...
On 21 jun, 13:30, Alan Williamson <a...@aw20.co.uk> wrote:
> We have a lot of caching inside of OpenBD ... our problem is simply we
> haven't documented it terribly well.
> We can cache to memory, file, database, mongo, and memcache. I need to
> simply start documenting this better.
> On 20/06/2012 14:10, Ivo Verbeek wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Just got back from a Railo presentation and one of the things that I
> > find usefull, which is not in OpenBD, is better support for caching.
> > Well, I am aware much is already in OpenBD, but maybe a bit difficult
> > to find. Railo has the option to cache in memory, cluster, EHCache,
> > Infinispan, Memcached, or in database (MongoDB, CouchDB). You can
> > simply setup caching for templates, resources, queries, sessions and
> > in Railo 4 also functions. The last one sounds an interesting
> > approach, caching function returnvalue based on its arguments.
> > Back to OpenBD. I know CFQUERY has a CACHETYPE attribute, but the
> > manual is not very clear about what is possible with that. Same for
> > CFCACHECONTENT, same attribute. What are our options?
> > Regarding sessions in DB or Memcached. In a previous post, some of you
> > already commented to me that the better approach is to enable J2EE
> > sessions and then setup different session storage on Tomcat/Jetty
> > level. But a setting like "sessionstorage=memcached" would simplify
> > that. What is against that?
> > Just wanted to hear what you think on the subject.
> in Railo was really easy... you define the cache type using the
> administrator and then you can specify it in the "type" value of
> cacheput and cacheget functions.
> Really powerful idea mixing diferent cache types upon your needs...
This caching part was one of the few things that impressed me in the
presentation, the fact that it is manageable through admin like
mappings and datasources. For the rest I only saw features for Railo 4
that I have been using with OpenBD for the last months :-)
> This caching part was one of the few things that impressed me in the
> presentation, the fact that it is manageable through admin like
> mappings and datasources. For the rest I only saw features for Railo 4
> that I have been using with OpenBD for the last months :-)
On Jun 22, 12:43 am, David G Ortega <g.ortega.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also just because tomcat was leaking a lot of memory... To me Jetty is
> simply better...
Could you elaborate on the Tomcat issue David?
I ask because I've been primarily using Tomcat in production for
various projects since Tomcat 3 and I don't recall running into any
memory leaks. I'd definitely be interested in hearing more details
since I rely on Tomcat very heavily. I use Jetty for a few things
(since it's embeddable) but I haven't found any compelling reasons to
switch to Jetty for general production use so I'd also be interested
in hearing why you think it is "simply better".
Feel free to take this Jetty vs. Tomcat discussion off list.
It is as futile as Pepsi vs. Coke.
The Java/J2EE forums are filled with such debates and it comes down to simple preference 9 times out of 10 and being lazy (as oppose to loyal to a given J2EE server - used it before, know how to install/configure it, memory muscle)
> On Jun 22, 12:43 am, David G Ortega <g.ortega.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also just because tomcat was leaking a lot of memory... To me Jetty is
>> simply better...
> Could you elaborate on the Tomcat issue David?
> so I'd also be interested
> in hearing why you think it is "simply better".
As Allan stated a lot of words has been spent in this debate, so here
I'm only clarifiying what happened to me using tomcat and railo.
My (bad) experience was with Tomcat and Railo 3.2
Nothing too much to say, java memory harvesting the whole memory of
the machine and putting the CPU into 99% in use... no apparently
explanation. Tested in several machines. Sometimes inmediately and
some times took a while where IIS simply returned 503. Instalation
supposed to be for production by the Railo Team.
Same code with openbd works even with 256mb in production. The funny
thing is that the jetty distribution of Railo for "development"
purposes was working.
The code in reality is an API that augmentates the data using some ML
code, in fact classification, language detection, clustering,
geolocation and phashing images...
My use of coldfusion is just only to have a scripting language instead
of java for faster coding... Core functions are mainly in Java, C.
I know that I could use Groovy or other scripting language but why not
cfscript?
So thats it... the code is working perfectly with jetty (railo,
openbd) and not with Tomcat... probably was a temporaly bug in
Tomcat... Maybe the Java version... Ihave to say that recently I
updated java and openbd was broken I had to return to previous java
update... who knows...
On 23 jun, 11:17, Alan Williamson <a...@aw20.co.uk> wrote:
> Feel free to take this Jetty vs. Tomcat discussion off list.
> It is as futile as Pepsi vs. Coke.
> The Java/J2EE forums are filled with such debates and it comes down to
> simple preference 9 times out of 10 and being lazy (as oppose to loyal
> to a given J2EE server - used it before, know how to install/configure
> it, memory muscle)
> thanks
> On 22/06/2012 13:42, seancorfield wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 12:43 am, David G Ortega <g.ortega.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Also just because tomcat was leaking a lot of memory... To me Jetty is
> >> simply better...
> > Could you elaborate on the Tomcat issue David?
> > so I'd also be interested
> > in hearing why you think it is "simply better".
On Jun 23, 9:03 am, David G Ortega <g.ortega.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Same code with openbd works even with 256mb in production. The funny
> thing is that the jetty distribution of Railo for "development"
> purposes was working.
...
> So thats it... the code is working perfectly with jetty (railo,
> openbd) and not with Tomcat... probably was a temporaly bug in
> Tomcat... Maybe the Java version... Ihave to say that recently I
> updated java and openbd was broken I had to return to previous java
> update... who knows...
Interesting. Thanx for sharing your experience.
> On 23 jun, 11:17, Alan Williamson <a...@aw20.co.uk> wrote:
> > Feel free to take this Jetty vs. Tomcat discussion off list.
