[infinispan-dev] Hotrod client intelligence

[Mircea Markus]

On 20 Jul 2010, at 14:13, Galder Zamarreño wrote:

> 
> On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Manik Surtani wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 20 Jul 2010, at 12:19, Mircea Markus wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> What if the field was missing?
>>> I don't know how can we read the optional field form the socket: we read it byte by byte, so if a byte is missing we block on read. Something like InputStream.available() would be useful, but even that one returns "an *estimate* of the number of bytes that can be read" - so it's not "good enough". 
>> 
>> Ah yes, what I meant was the field is unset.  E.g., contains a 0 or a -1 as a tx id which assumes either no tx in progress or a client that doesn't support txs.
> 
> As I said in another email. Use tx_id_length to signal this. 
> 
> If 0, not transactional
> If !=0, transactional and tx id follows
> 
> Btw, IMO [tx_id length] [tx_id] should be part of the header area.
yep, we can do that. Ping would not ever be transactionable, but yeah, that's not a big win.
> 
> And finally, I don't see anything wrong with having a version 2 of the Hot Rod protocol for 5.x where we can add these modifications.
Never thought of HotRod like not backward compatible - but you're right we can do that.
> 
>> 
>> So I presume this was to optimise away the extra, unset field?  How big is this field anyway?
>> 
>> --
>> Manik Surtani
>> manik at jboss.org
>> Lead, Infinispan
>> Lead, JBoss Cache
>> http://www.infinispan.org
>> http://www.jbosscache.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
> 
> --
> Galder Zamarreño
> Sr. Software Engineer
> Infinispan, JBoss Cache
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev