Hi Kent,
Although you're probably right with regard to the memory issue, using shared
members does not require UNSAFE access, and I'm not sure that it matters if
it "conflicts with the ACID concept". Yes, the data stored in-memory in the
CLR probably won't participate in transactions (although that might be
doable), but it might also not be an issue. Even native to SQL Server we
have constructs that don't participate in transactions: No variables,
including a table variables, participate in transactions (i.e., if you roll
back the tran, the variable will not be reset to its previous state.)
I do think that there are some use cases for introducing static collections,
but they are few and far between. I don't think we've been given enough
information here to find out if it is a good option in this case.
.... But I'm curious as to how you feel that an XML instance would help in a
cache scenario?
--
Adam Machanic
Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=457
--
"Kent Tegels" <ktegels@develop.com> wrote in message
news:b87ad7432cd78c80021b3303500@news.microsoft.com...
|