Hola Raf! couldn't Guava - which we are already depending by - replace the lambdaj option? Not that I have anything against lambdaj, my purpose purpose is having the minimal dependency set as possible for the core...
WDYT? TIA, -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Raffaele P. Guidi <[email protected]> wrote: > Well josql could be replaced by lambdaj - with exactly the same problems at > all levels but more fanciness - or by plain for loops and if statements. > This can be the best option if requirements for eviction are clear and not > changing too often. > > Ciao, > R > Il giorno 15/feb/2012 08:51, "Simone Tripodi" <[email protected]> ha > scritto: > >> Hello! >> >> I don't have a strong idea ATM how to replace the Josql, if you >> already have some hints I would be glad to do the legwork :) >> >> We're on the same boat, I thought on keeping the default Java >> serializer as well in the core module - as a second step, we could >> even think in a ServiceProvider based factory (find between services, >> use the default if no one has been found) >> >> +1 to Olivier's idea - I see the REST layer as an external module on >> top of the core... did you think about the same or had a different >> vision? >> >> Have a nice day, all the best! >> -Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Raffaele P. Guidi >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > regarding the formatting thing - I honestly don't remember why I did the >> > choice, di as you think best. Josql is used at the core level to select >> > items to purge in the background, I already pointed out it can also be a >> > performance bottleneck but it was easy to correct with ad-hoc code. >> > Regarding serializers - yes it should be done but I suggest to keep the >> > default one in the core. The java serializer is a bit too slow to be the >> > default one, IMHO. All other ideas and news are great, including the >> > memcached protocol, which I already investigated long ago (there's a java >> > me cached server with pluggable implementations somewhere in google code >> > that is a good starting point) and the fact that you'll be able to >> leverage >> > DM in some ways. >> > >> > Ciao, >> > R >> > Il giorno 14/feb/2012 22:29, "Simone Tripodi" <[email protected]> >> ha >> > scritto: >> > >> >> Hi all guys, >> >> >> >> I've finally got the chance - because I also have the need - to do >> >> some serious work on DM - now setting up the environment, experiencing >> >> the following issues and also got following considerations (some of >> >> them already afforded but discussions where to nowhere): >> >> >> >> disclaimer: I am not an OSGi guru, but I've been a modularization >> >> advocate time before OSGi got popularity, so I would like to apply the >> >> same approach as well: >> >> >> >> * serializers: all serializers are included by default, I am >> >> convinced that protostuff serializer can could be extracted as a >> >> separated module and maybe among other 3rd parties serializers, such >> >> as Kryo <http://code.google.com/p/kryo/>, ASF Thrift >> >> <http://thrift.apache.org/> and Avro <http://avro.apache.org/>, and >> >> the newer Message Pack <http://msgpack.org/> - users could plug their >> >> preferred serializer depending on their taste/needs/... >> >> >> >> * net.sf.josql:gentlyweb-utils:1.5 artifact not found - I did a >> >> little research and found it on <http://josql.sourceforge.net/> - >> >> while the feature of having an embedded query language is really cool, >> >> IMHO it could be part of an auxiliary module. I mean, basic query >> >> system must be supported by combining objects (and fluent APIs could >> >> help) but I'm not fully convinced on having it as foundation of our >> >> core module... >> >> >> >> A side question for Raf: I am not aware about performances, but why >> >> did you prefer j.u.Formatter.format( messagePattern, Object... args >> >> ).toString() over String.format( messagePattern, Object... args ) ? >> >> I extensively used the j.u.Formatter in Commons-Digester3 but for >> >> chaining more than one format in the same message, but I didn't notice >> >> the benefit of using it for single shot... TIA! >> >> >> >> As you can see, my proposal is having a minimal DM core, with less >> >> dependencies as possible, that can be easily enriched with aux >> >> modules... >> >> >> >> please provide your feedbacks, I have some time/energy to put on DM >> >> and glad to do it! >> >> TIA, >> >> -Simo >> >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >> >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >>
