----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19566/#review38720 -----------------------------------------------------------
The second option isn't backwards compatible, since the property can no longer be converted to an int and so existing applications would get an exception. I would probably lean to the first option as well. Existing behaviour is unaffected, but for applications that want to handle broker restarts, they could add an additional check/comparison on the bootsequence. I do quite like the idea of combining the two numbers in some way if it could make the comparison/checking simpler, but it becomes awkward if the sequence can wraparound. - Gordon Sim On March 27, 2014, 8:58 a.m., Pavel Moravec wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/19566/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 27, 2014, 8:58 a.m.) > > > Review request for qpid, Gordon Sim and Kim van der Riet. > > > Bugs: QPID-5642 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-5642 > > > Repository: qpid > > > Description > ------- > > Elegant (but not performance optimal) way of patch: > > 1) In Exchange::PreRoute::PreRoute, update exchange in store (whole entry). > 2) The update method is dealed very similarly like > MessageStoreImpl::create(db_ptr db, IdSequence& seq, const > qpid::broker::Persistable& p) method, i.e. calls BufferValue that calls > Exchange::encode. > > Here the code can be unified by merging MessageStoreImpl::update > intoMessageStoreImpl::create method where the code almost duplicates. > > However I do not see the patch as performance efficient, as with every > message preroute, new qpid::framing::Buffer is filled in Exchange::encode > method, data are copied from it to char* BufferValue::data and even then they > are really written to the BDB. While in fact we just update the only one > number in the Buffer. > > I tried to come up with less performance invasive approach (for those > interested, see > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=877576&action=diff - if you > dont have access there, let me write), that keeps qpid::framing::Buffer for > every durable exchange with sequencing enabled, but it returned (among > others) into the need of changing the way store encodes/decodes Exchange > instance (change in Exchange::encode / decode methods). What would make the > broker backward incompatible. > > Is the performance penalty (due to Exchange::encode method called for every > message preroute) acceptable? > > Is it worth merging MessageStoreImpl::update intoMessageStoreImpl::create > method? > > > Diffs > ----- > > /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Exchange.cpp 1582207 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/19566/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > - reproducer from JIRA verified > - automated tests passed (except for those known to fail due to QPID-5641 > (valgrind & legacystore) > > > Thanks, > > Pavel Moravec > >
