> On 16 Dec 2016, at 13:38, Tristan Tarrant <ttarr...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 16/12/16 13:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >> >>> On 16 Dec 2016, at 09:48, Tristan Tarrant <ttarr...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 16/12/16 09:34, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >>>>> Yes, the above design is what sprung to mind initially. Not sure about >>>>> the need of keeping the log in memory, as we would probably need some >>>>> form of persistent log for cache shutdown. Since this looks a lot like >>>>> the append-log of the Artemis journal, maybe we could use that. >>>> >>>> Well, when the cache is shut down, don’t we have time to empty the >>>> in-memory log? >>> >>> Cache shutdown should not be deferred because there is a backlog of >>> events that haven't been forwarded to Debezium, so we would want to pick >>> up from where we were when we restart the cache. >> >> But you’re willing to wait for the Artemis journal finish writing? I don’t >> quite see the difference. > > I'm thinking about the case where Debezium is temporarily not able to > collect the changes.
I’m thinking about the case where Artemis is not able to collect the changes. How is that different? :) _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
