jodydonetti.bsky.social
FusionCache http://tinyurl.com/fusioncache
Google OSS Award http://tinyurl.com/fusioncache-award
Microsoft MVP Award http://tinyurl.com/mvp-award
98 posts
140 followers
139 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Yes, that is a very typical use case!
I would suggest to also enable L2+backplane, so that data will be shared between nodes and cold starts will not be a problem.
comment in response to
post
Some community members are using to guard access to their resources, so in theory yes. But of course it wholly depends on the exact scenario.
If you can share more about it I may help.
comment in response to
post
github.com/ZiggyCreatur...
comment in response to
post
github.com/ZiggyCreatur...
comment in response to
post
ah, Effin’ Birds
comment in response to
post
bentocache.dev/docs/introdu...
comment in response to
post
“embracing imperfection”
To accept it and know when to do it (and when absolutely not to) is one of the most undervalued things to learn.
comment in response to
post
github.com/ZiggyCreatur...
comment in response to
post
For anyone interested in the *long* discussion that ensued, you can read here: quite intricate,but worthy imho.
github.com/ZiggyCreatur...
comment in response to
post
Probably similar, but honestly it's not a *technical* issue imho: different packages referencing different v8/v9 core packages works very well, since they all ref upgrade to the same, higher version.
It's a problem of company policies when they want only-LTS stuff: legit, but problematic.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
It's for the one thing, the other thing or both 😏 ?
comment in response to
post
UPDATE: github.com/ZiggyCreatur...
comment in response to
post
The support for those packages is, from what I know, the same as the .net release with the same version (so STS/LTS).
See here at 40min
youtu.be/6Ixv-XmK8YY?...
comment in response to
post
I'm trying to better understand that, they said "... which I have to reference directly due to code requirements".
But it's not 100% clear yet if they need to depend on the package or the package version for some reason.
Also (not sure it matters) there's central package management involved.
comment in response to
post
Yep, I was thinking of reporting there or in some mvp channels.
But first, I tried here :D
comment in response to
post
I remember that: it was because it's a MS policy not to update every single package that has a dependency on a package with a new patch, since everyone can just directly reference the new version in their project and solve it.
Not saying I agree or not, just stating what I remember.
comment in response to
post
Thanks for sharing Steven!
On 1 hand it kinda makes sense, on the other it's an extra thing to keep track of.
Since until FusionCache v1.4.1 I was referencing v8 pkgs and nobody said anything ever, I'm currently leaning toward simply getting back to v8 pkgs and stay there, but I'm not sure yet...
comment in response to
post
2 years ago I bought a Panasonic 65” with exactly the same rationale: it has been glorious.
comment in response to
post
Can confirm: by targeting net7 instead of netstandard2 it's now working.
I've been carried away by the habit to use the very minimal dependency surface area 😅
Thanks!
comment in response to
post
Dang it, the IOutputCacheStore interface requires .net 7 and older.
learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet...
comment in response to
post
Already tried, but nothing.
NB: my project is targeting .net standard 2.0
comment in response to
post
Awesome, let me know about your FusionCache journey (both code+docs), I’m really interested!
For Aspire, everything should work well: wiring, otel, etc were all good from the get go 👍
I’d like for a better “native” feeling between them, but haven’t put the pieces together yet.
Ideas are welcome!
comment in response to
post
Hi Manuel, FusionCache creator here, let me know if you need something.
Also curious to know about your experience, both with FusionCache itself and when used with Aspire.
comment in response to
post
A nice thing is that, because of all the built-in features of FusionCache, the provider implementation is really really lightweight, basically just forwarding some some calls to FusionCache, nice!
Take a look at the source:
github.com/VahidN/EFCor...