Some notes: "This means that the Hot Rod protocol will be extended so that operation headers always carry a Source ID field." - shall we add a new intelligence level to handle this? Besides reducing the payload, would allow upgrading the java and Cpp clients independently.
In one of our discussions, you've also mentioned that you'd want to use the cluster listeners as a foundation for this functionality. That doesn't seem to be the case from the document, or? Not that it's a bad thing, just that I want to clarify the relation between the two. Another way to handle connection management, based on clustered listeners, would be: - the node on which the listeners ID hashes is the only one responsible for piggyback notifications to the remote client - it creates a cluster listener to be notified on what to send to the client (can make use cluster listener's filtering and transformer capabilities here) Comparing the two approaches: this approach reuses some code (not sure how much, we might be able to do that anyway) from the cluster listeners and also reduces the number of connections required between clint and server, but at the cost of performance/network hops. Also the number of connections a client is required to have hasn't been a problem yet. One more note on ST: during ST a node might receive the same notification multiple times (from old owner and new owner). I guess it makes sense documenting that? On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Galder Zamarreño <gal...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Re: https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/wiki/Remote-Hot-Rod-Events > > Thanks a lot for the feedback provided in last thread. It was very > constructive feedback :) > > I've just finished updating the design document with the feedback provided in > the previous email thread. Can you please have another read and let the list > know what you think of it? > > Side note: The scope has got bigger (with the addition of > filters/converters), so we might need to consider whether we want all > features in next version, or whether some parts could be branched out to next > iterations. +1. Can we include the notification ack in the optionals category? What about leaving these as the last bit to be implemented? If time allows (not to delay the release) we can add them, otherwise just add them in future iterations? > > Cheers, > -- > Galder Zamarreño > gal...@redhat.com > twitter.com/galderz > > Project Lead, Escalante > http://escalante.io > > Engineer, Infinispan > http://infinispan.org > Cheers, -- Mircea Markus Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
