Hi, If the user can turn off hot update then this won't be a performance issue. I believe this is the way you are implementing it. So if a user wants more flexibility they have to sacrifice performance. If they want performance they shouldn't go for things like hot update.
Thanks, Supun.. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Ruwan Linton <[email protected]>wrote: > Yes Supun, the SynapseConfiguration edits are not synchronized for the > moment. We will any way need to make them synchronized with enabling the hot > update. > > I am working on that. I prefer to implement with our own deployer > implementation, because it seems we do not have the flexibility that is > required with the axis2 deployer architecture. > > Thanks, > Ruwan > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Supun Kamburugamuva > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Ruwan Linton <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> I was trying to implement the hot deployment and hot update of the >>> synapse artifacts as per my proposal the to the list sometime back using the >>> axis2 deployers. But due to some restrictions and the architecture of the >>> axis2 deployers we cannot use that for synapse artifact deployment. >>> >>> The axis2 deployer hot update functionality has been implemented to call >>> the unDeploy() method and then call the deploy method on that artifact. This >>> causes an issue for syanpse since synapse has some restrictions on a >>> absolute minimal configuration. We cannot let the user undeploy the main and >>> fault sequences. But acording to the way the axis2 hot update has been >>> implemented we do not have a means of differentiating the hot update >>> undeploy call from the actual undeploy call. Actual undeploy call should >>> prevent undeploying the main and fault sequences while it should be possible >>> to undeploy those for hot updating. >>> >>> Also please note that with this approach there is a donwtime of the >>> artifacts when doing the hot update which has to be prevented some how. >>> >>> Given the above facts it seems like we will have to go with a synapse >>> implementation of the deployers. >>> >> >> If we go for a deployment like this, the implementation may require quite >> a lot of synchronizations. I'm not sure how the implementation is going to >> be. But I just want to bring this up so we can discuss if there is an issue. >> >> Thanks, >> Supun.. >> >> >>> >>> WDYT?? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ruwan >>> >>> -- >>> Ruwan Linton >>> Technical Lead & Product Manager; WSO2 ESB; http://wso2.org/esb >>> WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.org >>> email: [email protected]; cell: +94 77 341 3097 >>> blog: http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc >> http://wso2.org >> supunk.blogspot.com >> >> >> > > > -- > Ruwan Linton > Technical Lead & Product Manager; WSO2 ESB; http://wso2.org/esb > WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.org > email: [email protected]; cell: +94 77 341 3097 > blog: http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com > -- Software Engineer, WSO2 Inc http://wso2.org supunk.blogspot.com
