On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Andrea Aime
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Justin Deoliveira
> wrote:
>
>> Would this be acceptable, even for the stable series?
>>>
>> Works for me.
>>
>>>
>>> Also, would this have to be part of its own extension plugin, be part of
>>> core
>>> and sp
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> Would this be acceptable, even for the stable series?
>>
> Works for me.
>
>>
>> Also, would this have to be part of its own extension plugin, be part of
>> core
>> and spread out in the relevant modules, be part of core but be its own
>>
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> > Missed this the first time around :) While not ideal I think this will be
> > the best approach for now (keep it constrained) until funding/mandate
> allows
> > us to move toward a more comprehensive solution at the catalog level.
> > $0.02
>
Hi Andrea,
as long as it works and it's clear how to disable (at least for
testing without it) I'm ok with your proposal getting into both 2.1.x
and 2.2.x _now_, taking into account for 2.2.x we'll hopefully come up
with a solution more general/less invasive, or whatever QA requirement
we assess w
> Missed this the first time around :) While not ideal I think this will be
> the best approach for now (keep it constrained) until funding/mandate allows
> us to move toward a more comprehensive solution at the catalog level.
> $0.02
Yep yep, I fully agree, especially since it seems we might get
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Gabriel Roldan
> wrote:
> > Hey Andrea,
> >
> > interesting issue.
> >
> > Just as a heads up, so that some of the comments bellow make more
> > sense, I'm starting to investigate on what it would take for a
> >
Interesting stuff.
How "constrained" can we keep the global lock approach? Will locking code
and logic be scattered throughout the various systems? I am worried about
the strategy not being able to be easily disabled in cases where we want to
adopt an alterate strategy, or support other catalog/co
It seems I left a couple of sentences unfishied. Amending.
>> There could be, just lets sync up on what's needed, what the workflow
>> would be, and lets make it possible.
>
> I guess I would just need a way to tell GWC
that I need it to let go of everything, basically a shut down of sorts,
and r
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Gabriel Roldan wrote:
> Hey Andrea,
>
> interesting issue.
>
> Just as a heads up, so that some of the comments bellow make more
> sense, I'm starting to investigate on what it would take for a
> scalable catalog/configuration backend, possibly with HA and on a
> cl
Hey Andrea,
interesting issue.
Just as a heads up, so that some of the comments bellow make more
sense, I'm starting to investigate on what it would take for a
scalable catalog/configuration backend, possibly with HA and on a
cluster environment.
The only I know for sure now is that I want to lev
Hi,
me and Alessio are looking for a way to perform a live backup and restore
of the GeoServer data directory without having to stop the instance.
Now, there is a number of issues to be faced but let me start with the
major one: concurrent catalog modifications.
During a backup nothign should be a
11 matches
Mail list logo
