I consider clustering to be a first class feature of karaf 3.x and I would like to see it as part of the karaf trunk and not as part of 3rd library which is partially open sourced. In any case since there are a lot of different views, let's resolve this "the apache way" and vote on which solution we want to add to the karaf trunk.
On Friday, April 15, 2011, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com> wrote: > So I have another proposal to put on the table. > > I've been working since a few weeks on this very subject as part of my > day job at FuseSource, and we've just open sourced some components: > http://fabric.fusesource.org/ > > A *very * rough overview is available at > http://fabric.fusesource.org/documentation/user-guide.html > and a getting started guide at > http://fabric.fusesource.org/documentation/getting-started.html > > Feedback welcome. > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:48, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >> I'm totally agree with Chris. >> >> Ioannis and I are aware that the solution is not the killer one, that we can >> do a lot of things better. >> >> However, the solution has the main advantage to exist and work. >> People (Karaf contributors and community) can play with this cluster >> implementation and enhance it. >> >> So here's my +1 also. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On 04/13/2011 05:32 PM, Chris Custine wrote: >>> >>> +1 for bringing this code to Karaf. >>> >>> I haven't tested this out thoroughly or even looked deeply at the >>> code, but in general I like this idea. I certainly agree with some of >>> Guillaume's points, however unless there is a suitable alternative I >>> think this will provide a good starting point for the community to get >>> involved and improve it. >>> >>> Chris >>> -- >>> Chris Custine >>> My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 09:06, Ioannis Canellos<ioca...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Guillaume, I haven't seen all your points, so here are some comments for >>>> the >>>> rest: >>>> >>>> *Automatic discovery is really a myth imho. Such protocols have to use >>>>> >>>>> multicast and multicast is really forbidden in a lot of places. So >>>>> *relying* on multicast would be a mistake I think. I've seen >>>>> hazelcast can be configured using static ips which sounds better >>>>> (though multicast is nice for demos, no problem with that).* >>>>> >>>> >>>> In places like EC2 or other Cloud platforms, indeed multicast is >>>> forbidden, >>>> but in a private cluster, multicast is great. >>>> So I would say that automatic discovery is not panacea, but its still a >>>> very >>>> strong feature. >>>> >>>> >>>>> *That's really my problem. Maybe it's a misunderstanding, but when you* >>>>> * say "replication", I hear same thing everywhere, which I have a >>>>> problem with. >>>>> I think that definitely solve some problems, but it looks too limited.* >>>>> >>>> >>>> Let's don't stick to the "term" replication. Let's just say that it >>>> provides >>>> means to configure a group of nodes instead of a single one. And note >>>> that >>>> not all nodes are in total synch. You can configure what you want to >>>> sync. >>>> The configuration means can be extended and become more granular in order >>>> to >>>> fit all needs. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Ioannis Canellos* >>>> * >>>> http://iocanel.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> Apache Karaf<http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer& PMC >>>> Apache ServiceMix<http://servicemix.apache.org/> Committer >>>> * >>>> >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com > > Connect at CamelOne May 24-26 > The Open Source Integration Conference > http://camelone.com/ > -- *Ioannis Canellos* * http://iocanel.blogspot.com Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC Apache ServiceMix <http://servicemix.apache.org/> Committer *
