how can close second-level cache in hibernate3.0

ivanai · **Posted:** Sat Apr 02, 2005 3:17 am

second-level cache is enabled by default, how can close it?

Thanks for your help!

emmanuel · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Second level cache is not used by default unless you declare explicitly some caching in your hbm.xml files (or in the cfg.xml through <class-cahe/> and <collection-cache/>)

mattintx · **Joined:** Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:03 am **Posts:** 12

In Hibernate 3.0 final, I have noticed an issue trying to disable the second level cache. It seems I can't disable it and the dependency on ehcache without setting the Cache Provider to something (i.e. - HashtableCacheProvider).

In Configuration.java, line 182, from Hibernate 3.0 release:

Code:

// Second-level / query cache:
      
      settings.setCacheProvider( createCacheProvider(properties) );
      
      boolean useSecondLevelCache = PropertiesHelper.getBoolean(Environment.USE_SECOND_LEVEL_CACHE, properties, true);
      log.info( "Second-level cache: " + enabledDisabled(useSecondLevelCache) );
      settings.setSecondLevelCacheEnabled(useSecondLevelCache);

There is an attempt to instantiate the Cache Provider [createCacheProvider()] before it is checked whether the cache is enabled or not. If no cache provider is set, it attempts to instantiate EhCacheProvider by default.

Thus, if you just set hibernate.cache.use_second_level_cache to false, without setting the cache provider, you get a class not found exception for one of the ehcache classes.

Is this how it is supposed to work? I would think you could flip the logic above to remove the dependency on ehcache.

I noticed mention of a org.hibernate.cache.EmptyCacheProvider class in the distribution hibernate.properties, but that it is not included in the distribution.

emmanuel · **Posted:** Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:30 am

That's correct we prepare the provider, but we don't use it. Is it really a big issue?
You can set the HashCache provider, if you don't want any dependency, but DON'T use it

mattintx · **Joined:** Fri Apr 01, 2005 1:03 am **Posts:** 12

It's not a big issue code wise ... It just seems counter intuitive.

Say for instance I said you have to specify an LDAP provider in a system where you had LDAP disabled... does that make sense?

steve · **Posted:** Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:02 pm

This is was "misfeature" ;)

It'll be fixed.