Comments on: Codename “Velocity” WF/WCF Persistence Provider

By: Kevin Clark

Kevin Clark — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 06:02:36 +0000

Thanks Lars for the insight. Although having a face to face comparison of the features that these Distributed cache solutions have could be a very valuable asset to anyone who is going to implement one such solution.

Cheers

By: larsw

larsw — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:30:42 +0000

Hi Kevin,

If you refer to the latest CTP of Velocity, (as far as I know) it doesn’t come with a Go-Live license, so you can’t really be using this in production yet.

As for NCache/MemCached etc. you can write providers for them just as easily as the one I wrote for Velocity – so it’s a matter of taste.

–larsw

By: Kevin Clark

Kevin Clark — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:35:50 +0000

Hi Lars, Thanks for the post. Hope you continue to have good time with your son. I just have a quick question... in the presence of so many .net Distributed caching providers like NCache, MemCache etc... Do you think these community versions of velocity would actually be used in production environments any time soon? May be you can write a comparison on these distributed solutions.

By: Interesting Finds: December 23, 2008 « Hank Wallace

Interesting Finds: December 23, 2008 « Hank Wallace — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:06:49 +0000

[...] and why should you care in eight pages… Tom Hollander – How my team does agile Lars Wilhelmsen – Codename “Velocity” WF/WCF Persistence Provider Davy Brion – First Look At NHibernate Profiler Ade Miller – Setting up Subversion on Windows Home [...]