At OthersOnline we make heavy use of memcached, memcachedb and memcacheq. While in general all of these work and work well, we're learning that many of the memcache client libraries (we're using spy) may have been developed with the assumption that the backend you are interacting with operates as a cache.
Individual messages may or may not be treated as the precious, valuable nuggets of data that no doubt they are. Individual backends may be assumed down for lengthy periods of time regardless of actual state. While in general I like memcacheq and would love to try out kestrel, the fact that both rely on a memcache client library gives me pause.
Individual messages may or may not be treated as the precious, valuable nuggets of data that no doubt they are. Individual backends may be assumed down for lengthy periods of time regardless of actual state. While in general I like memcacheq and would love to try out kestrel, the fact that both rely on a memcache client library gives me pause.
