Isn't it something like we build the whole xxx Pojo by aggregating all the events to xxx<some action>Event. But in this case, minimally we have to modify at least one event whenever we introduce a new field to or remove from the Pojo.
Thanks, Reka On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Nirmal Fernando <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Imesh Gunaratne <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm sorry I tend to disagree. The reasons for only including the >> properties were: >> >> 1. It reduces the size of the message sent on the network. >> 2. It reduces the time it takes to de-serialize the message. >> 3. Its simple and easier to understand. >> >> Examples: >> >> Event: Member Activated Event >> Properties sent: Member Keys, Member Status = Active >> >> Event: Cluster Removed Event >> Properties sent: Cluster Keys >> >> For an instance, in Cluster Removed Event is there any point sending the >> complete Cluster object with hundreds of child objects in it, just to say >> the subscriber to remove the given cluster object from its service? >> > > Imesh, yes agree. But as I said in my second reply, > > *Isn't this at least make sense, at the *CreatedEvents?* > Currently, you have to change everywhere, if you just add a new attribute > to a POJO. > >> >> Thanks >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Udara Liyanage <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Nirmal Fernando <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Isn't this at least make sense, at the *CreatedEvents? Currently, if I >>>> do some change to a bean of the topology, I've to duplicate this change >>>> inside the event too. Which is very error probing. >>>> >>>> If everyone agrees, I could fix this. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Nirmal Fernando < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> AFAIS currently we maintain the same information in a POJO (say >>>>> Cluster) and also in its corresponding event (ClusterCreatedEvent) >>>>> separately. What's the reason behind this? I feel this is an unnecessary >>>>> work and this doesn't scale. >>>>> >>>>> For me, what makes sense is to send the corresponding POJO wrapped via >>>>> an Event. This way we need to maintain information only at the POJO and >>>>> makes programming the events much much easy. >>>>> >>>>> WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> Nirmal >>>>> >>>>> Nirmal Fernando. >>>>> PPMC Member & Committer of Apache Stratos, >>>>> Senior Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc. >>>>> >>>>> Blog: http://nirmalfdo.blogspot.com/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Nirmal >>>> >>>> Nirmal Fernando. >>>> PPMC Member & Committer of Apache Stratos, >>>> Senior Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc. >>>> >>>> Blog: http://nirmalfdo.blogspot.com/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Udara Liyanage >>> Software Engineer >>> WSO2, Inc.: http://wso2.com >>> lean. enterprise. middleware >>> >>> web: http://udaraliyanage.wordpress.com >>> phone: +94 71 443 6897 >>> >> >> > > > -- > Best Regards, > Nirmal > > Nirmal Fernando. > PPMC Member & Committer of Apache Stratos, > Senior Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc. > > Blog: http://nirmalfdo.blogspot.com/ > -- Reka Thirunavukkarasu Software Engineer, WSO2, Inc.:http://wso2.com, Mobile: +94776442007
