On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Vladimir Blagojevic <vblag...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hmm very good points Sanne. Yeah I think we can have a contract that > returns an Address were task was executed. > > > Cheers, > Vladimir > On 2/26/2014, 4:25 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: >> I'm a bit skeptical. >> It might sound a sensible request currently, but if you do so you >> inherently "promise" that tasks are going to be executed on a specific >> server; AFAIK we promise execution on data locality, We allow execution to be bound on a specific address: http://goo.gl/H5qTJZ I see your point with data locality vs. specific server. >> but maintaining a >> good level of flexibility you can evolve your system to smarter load >> balancing of tasks, failover operations, etc.. >> If you expose execution details, you won't be able to develop any of >> that in future. >> >> To make an example from the database world - seems the analogy is >> common these days - it's like you run a SELECT statement but want to >> pick which CPU core is going to be used. That would be really odd, as >> you would take away the option from the scheduler to make an effective >> choice. >> Still, this approach might be desirable for a database which doesn't >> do any smart scheduling. >> >> Some of these concerns might be mitigated if you return the Address of >> where the task *was* executed, after it's done. I still don't think it >> should be of user's interest but at least you would be able to >> implement rescheduling or failover policies in future. We already have failure policies in place, but the user only needs to audit the failure, not to failover. If users are interested on knowing the failures, another way of doing it is the current future, in the Future.get to throw a custom exception (subclass of ExecutionException) containing as information where the execution failed. >> >> Sanne >> >> >> On 26 February 2014 19:31, Vladimir Blagojevic <vblag...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> Hey, >>> >>> There is an interesting request from community to include an Address along >>> with a Future returned for a subtask being executed [1]. >>> >>> I think it makes sense what this user wants. We might create Future sub >>> interface that has getAddress method and we can return an object >>> implementing that interface instead of plain Future. In some new major >>> release we can officially change the signature of these >>> DistributedExecutorService methods to return i.e TargetedFuture - it would >>> not break existing clients. Maybe even make TargetedFuture extend >>> NotifyingFuture. >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> Vladimir >>> >>> [1] https://community.jboss.org/thread/237442 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev 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
