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
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
On 27 February 2014 16:58, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote:
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,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Sanne Grinovero sa...@infinispan.orgwrote:
On 27 February 2014 16:58, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote:
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
On 27 February 2014 18:40, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Sanne Grinovero sa...@infinispan.org
wrote:
On 27 February 2014 16:58, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Vladimir Blagojevic vblag...@redhat.com
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
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, but maintaining a
good level of flexibility you can evolve your system to smarter load
