Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>You could have a look at</p> <p><a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/ee695849" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Windows Server AppFabric</a>. It used to be called 'velocity'. </p> <blockquote> <p>It is a distributed in-memory application cache platform for developing scalable, high-performance applications.</p> </blockquote> <p>Otherwise, the Enterprise Library Caching Application Block you're talking about is here: <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff664753%28v=PandP.50%29.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Caching Application Block</a> however, this page says:</p> <blockquote> <p>Caching Application Block functionality is built into .NET Framework 4.0; therefore the Enterprise Library Caching Application Block will be deprecated in releases after 5.0. You should consider using the .NET 4.0 System.Runtime.Caching classes instead of the Caching Application Block in future development.</p> </blockquote> <p>And actually, the <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.runtime.caching%28VS.100%29.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">System.Runtime.Caching Namespace</a> is a very good building block to build on if you're going to write something by yourself. I don't think it implements the notion of distributed cache, that's why Windows Server AppFabric exists.</p> <p>Now, there is also non-Microsoft technologies available in the .NET space. Have a look a memcached and .NET implementation or usage:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/276924/is-there-a-port-of-memcache-to-net">Is there a port of memcache to .Net?</a></li> <li><a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/351635/memcached-with-windows-and-net">Memcached with Windows and .NET</a></li> </ul> <p>You also have commercial packages available, like <a href="http://www.alachisoft.com/ncache/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">NCache</a> (I'm not affiliated). I don't know what they provide, but it's also probably interesting to have a look at it, just to be aware what they provide, to ensure you don't miss any feature you'd need later one.</p>
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
    3. VO
      singulars
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload