We will go for a TIM. Just looked at the doc and tes that would simplify
our work a lot.

Thank you,

Luc

On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 18:48 -0800, Nabib El-Rahman wrote:

> Hi guys,
> 
> I work for Terracotta ( on the server side ) and find this work with
> Clojure + Terracotta very exciting.  Writing a TIM is definitely the
> way to go, It's a place to hide the glue until both Terracotta and
> Clojure catches up with each other. If you have any questions feel
> free to post on our forums
> http://forums.terracotta.org/forums/forums/list.page
> 
> If you check out our trunk version, theres also an effort to make a
> common-api which will help writing a TIM easier for you guys.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> -Nabib
> 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Luc Prefontane
> <lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca> wrote:
> 
>         We think the same way. Our first implementation of an
>         alternative to AtomicReference
>         is straightforward, we will look at improving it if the need
>         arises.
>         
>         It will be easier to do so when we get stats from Terracotta
>         after running some benchmarks.
>         There's much to do before getting there.
>         
>         Luc
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 14:33 -0500, Paul Stadig wrote: 
>         
>         > In the Namespace case, it might be premature optimization to worry
>         > about AtomicReference being replaced. If there is a way to rewrite
>         > that code with, say, synchronized blocks, and it will work better 
> with
>         > Terracotta, I think it would be worth doing. I don't think it would 
> be
>         > normal usage to be updating the mappings and aliases in a namespace
>         > 1,000 times a second.
>         > 
>         > AtomicReference is also used in Atom and Agent. Those cases may not 
> be
>         > as straight forward.
>         > 
>         > 
>         > Paul
>         > 
>         > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Luc Prefontaine
>         > <lprefonta...@softaddicts.ca> wrote:
>         > >
>         > > 1) AtomicReference is used in several places. Instead of changing 
> it, we
>         > > think we can keep
>         > > it when Clojure runs "locally" and provide an alternative when 
> running in
>         > > "shared" mode.
>         > >
>         > > AtomicReference is optimized to be efficient in a standalone JVM. 
> We would
>         > > like to
>         > > keep it that way. Eventually Terracotta will provide 
> instrumentation on this
>         > > class
>         > > by default so the "shared" implementation could be thrown away in 
> the near
>         > > future.
>         > > We see the double implementations as a transition period until 
> Terracotta
>         > > supports
>         > > it directly.
>         > >
>         > > 2) Noted
>         > >
>         > > Shared versus local mode:
>         > >
>         > > That's what we have in mind, getting Clojure to work in a 
> "shared" mode
>         > > versus a
>         > > local/standalone mode. We want 0 impacts on the user code. 
> Eventually we
>         > > could use meta data to provide some hints that would allow us to 
> fine tune
>         > > shared interactions from user code. This would not impact "local" 
> mode
>         > > behaviours.
>         > > We're not there yet but we know that this possibility exists so 
> that's
>         > > reassuring
>         > > for the future.
>         > >
>         > > Integration is pretty simple once the common code base integrates 
> the
>         > > necessary
>         > > changes. We need a shell script, a Terracotta configuration that 
> will be
>         > > maintained
>         > > as part of the Clojure code base and some documentation.
>         > >
>         > > As of now we use a system property to toggle the modes, we will 
> implement a
>         > > transparent way (testing the presence of a terracotta property 
> most
>         > > probably).
>         > >
>         > >
>         > > Luc
>         > 
>         > 
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         -- 
>         
>         Luc Préfontaine
>         
>         Off.:(514) 993-0320
>         Fax.:(514) 993-0325
>         
>         Armageddon was yesterday, today we have a real problem...
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
> 
> 
> 
> > 

-- 

Luc Préfontaine

Off.:(514) 993-0320
Fax.:(514) 993-0325

Armageddon was yesterday, today we have a real problem...

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to