With this PR, it would be possible to identify servers running with the > same ip and port, because now they will be identified by member id. But > Bruce realized that it could be a problem if two servers are running in the > same JVM, as they will share the same member id. It seems its very unlikely > that people are doing it, but its not explicitly prohibited. >
What is going to happen if a user does set things up this way? The things I can think of are: 1. When a connection to one of the cache server fails, the client will close all of the connections to both. But this doesn't seem like a bad outcome, since it's likely the whole server crashed anyway. 2. Pings might not reach the correct server - but it looks like we have a single ClientHealthMonitor for the server process anyway? So I think the pings are getting to the right place. If there aren't any other negative outcomes, I think it's ok to proceed with the current solution. But I'd also be ok going to ip+port+id. I also agree that this use case of a single pool connecting to multiple cache servers in the same process doesn't make much sense. -Dan
