On 1/4/06, Max Pfingsthorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Geoff Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On 12/20/05, Max Pfingsthorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On another note: I need the eventcaching block for webdav, but > > > > > that one only needs jms in one class, and databases in the > > > > > samples. So, I'll work on the dependency issue there instead of > > > > > in the webdav block directly. > > > > ... > > > > > The eventcache is needed for more advanced caching. The > > components need to know about it to be able to construct the > > right Validity objects for Source.getValidity(). We found out > > that eventcaching is really key for good performance of the > > website, so I would consider it a good kind of dependency. Of > > course, the eventcaching block depending (indirectly) on the > > database block is a bit silly. > > > > Yes, these dependencies were always somewhat painful - as we discussed > > before [1]. It's only the samples that cause the dependency on the > > database block IIRC. There was some work being done on samples > > dependencies I think - or were samples being separated into samples > > blocks perhaps? That would cure this. > > > > I see you've implemented some of this in webdav - did you manage to > > avoid a dependency on the database block somehow? > > Yes, well, at least directly. The webdav block now depends only on repository > and eventcache, not on database. However, eventcache still depends on > database. I was thinking about the same thing, meaning to make a new block > for the eventcache samples. That has been done for other blocks and would > take care it, as you said. > However, I don't know if its worth it in the 2.1 branch. Compiling a few more > classes doesn't hurt too much for now. It would make more sense and be worth > it for 2.2 as it is supposed to be released semi-soon, right?
Oh, I see. Afraid I haven't been able to follow the 2.2 release discussions, but I gather it is coming soon - definitely agree it'd be worth it there. Geoff
