[MGNLDMS-172] DMS Module Shouldn't Require Cache Module Created: 27/Oct/09  Updated: 04/Nov/15  Resolved: 04/Nov/15

Status: Closed
Project: Document Management System (closed)
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: 1.2.8
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Improvement Priority: Major
Reporter: Sean McMains Assignee: Philipp Bärfuss
Resolution: Won't Do Votes: 0
Labels: None
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Template:
Acceptance criteria:
Empty
Date of First Response:

 Description   

When we ugraded from DMS version 1.2.6 to 1.2.8, a new runtime dependency was introduced: the cache module.

Since we're using an external cache, we have not previously included the cache module. Unfortunately, since we needed other fixes in DMS 1.2.8, leaving it out was no longer an option for us because of the new dependency.

When we deployed the updated version of the DMS, some of our backups suddenly started failing. As it turned out, this was due to low memory conditions caused by the cache module's filters. (I suspect the GZIP filter was reading the whole huge XML file into memory and trying to zip it up before sending it along.) Removing the cache and GZIP filters has given us a viable workaround for now.

While I recognize from the diffs that the DMS module needed to be able to talk to the cache module when it is present to ensure data gets flushed at the appropriate time, it would be better to make that an optional dependency so that if the cache module isn't installed, the DMS module simply doesn't try to flush the cache data and works as it had been previous to the newer releases. This will allow Magnolia users a maximum degree of flexibility when deciding whether to use Magnolia's internal caching or an external solution.



 Comments   
Comment by Michael Mühlebach [ 04/Nov/15 ]

Given the thousands of other issues we have open that are more highly requested, we won't be able to address this issue in the foreseeable future. Instead we will focus on issues with a higher impact, and more votes.
Thanks for taking the time to raise this issue. As you are no doubt aware this issue has been on our backlog for some time now with very little movement.
I'm going to close this to set expectations so the issue doesn't stay open for years with few updates. If the issue is still relevant please feel free to reopen it or create a new issue.

Generated at Mon Feb 12 00:49:07 CET 2024 using Jira 9.4.2#940002-sha1:46d1a51de284217efdcb32434eab47a99af2938b.