The simple programming mechanism I use for unordered but inclusive events is a map or set. I use a map for what is expected and a map for what has happened. I use a thread responding to notifications to fill in the results data and then either call out or notify another thread of the new results. It’s that final code activity that checks for “do I have everything I need to do more work?” It will then react when that moment occurs, retry, re-dispatch or whatever the appropriate action is. That way, everything is separated and still involves testable behaviors.
Gregg Wonderly On Apr 17, 2014, at 7:56 PM, Peter <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: > Thanks Greg, I agree, remote events have an event id and sequence number, so > it's very easy for clients to order them if necessary. > > I think for the test I'll create a simple comparator that orders the events > at the client. > > The test only needs to ensure that all expected events are received and > provide sufficient information allowing them to be correctly ordered. > > Regards, > > Peter. > > ----- Original message ----- >> >> Hi Peter: >> >> You should probably create a JIRA enhancement ticket to track discussion >> if you’re picturing adding some kind of order-guaranteeing comparator to >> the API. But I don’t think you really need to do that, because the >> usage would be so dependent on the client’s architecture that it >> probably isn’t sensible to put it in the API. >> >> On the actual question, I’d suggest that Reggie should make no >> guarantees on the order of event delivery (as per the event spec). That >> being the case, imposing some kind of order is a client problem, not >> Reggie’s. I would suggest modifying the test simply to ensure that all >> the expected events have been received in the required time, regardless >> of the order. Perhaps also add some clarification to the service >> registrar spec. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Greg Trasuk. >> >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Peter <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> From: Peter <j...@zeus.net.au> >>> Subject: RemoteEvent specification - proposal >>> Date: April 17, 2014 at 7:28:13 AM EDT >>> To: d...@apache.river.org >>> Reply-To: Peter <j...@zeus.net.au> >>> >>> >>> The Jini Remote Event specification clearly states that remote events >>> may arrive out of order, yet some lookup tck tests in the qa test >>> suite require events to arrive in order. >>> >>> Presently I have an Executor in Reggie, used specifically for sending >>> event notifications, however it is single threaded, to ensure events >>> arrive in an order identical to client registration, to avoid qa test >>> failures. >>> >>> I propose creating a comparator clients can use to order events as >>> they arrive. This will allow qa tests, when utilising this comparator, >>> to pass when Reggie is configured to use a multi threaded event >>> notifier executor. This would increase Reggie's scalability for event >>> notifications. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Peter. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
