[infinispan-dev] Design of Remote Hot Rod events - round 2

[Mircea Markus]

Hey Galder,

Another idea that come up today was to use the QueryDSL for specifying both the filter and the transformer (the DSL has projection).
The query DSL builds an HQL string for which one the server side the filter can be built on the fly (we already do that with the embedded query DSL).
There are some nice advantages of doing this: build the filter and the listener at runtime, in a language independent manner(assuming query DSL is migrated), with an API customers are already used to. 


On Dec 6, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Dennis Reed <dereed at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 12/06/2013 08:52 AM, Mircea Markus wrote:
>> Some notes:
>> 
>> "This means that the Hot Rod protocol will be extended so that operation headers always carry a Source ID field."
>> - shall we add a new intelligence level to handle this? Besides reducing the payload, would allow upgrading the java and Cpp clients independently.
> 
> Instead of a new intelligence level, if the client told the server what 
> features it supports when connecting this could be done more fine-grained,
> so that a client could support some subset of functionality (instead of 
> being forced to implement the specific extentions in one of the 
> pre-defined intelligence levels).
> 
> -Dennis
> 
>> In one of our discussions, you've also mentioned that you'd want to use the cluster listeners as a foundation for this functionality. That doesn't seem to be the case from the document, or? Not that it's a bad thing, just that I want to clarify the relation between the two. Another way to handle connection management, based on clustered listeners, would be:
>> - the node on which the listeners ID hashes is the only one responsible for piggyback notifications to the remote client
>> - it creates a cluster listener to be notified on what to send to the client (can make use cluster listener's filtering and transformer capabilities here)
>> 
>> Comparing the two approaches: this approach reuses some code (not sure how much, we might be able to do that anyway) from the cluster listeners and also reduces the number of connections required between clint and server, but at the cost of performance/network hops. Also the number of connections a client is required to have hasn't been a problem yet.
>> 
>> One more note on ST: during ST a node might receive the same notification multiple times (from old owner and new owner). I guess it makes sense documenting that?
>> 
>> On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Galder Zamarreño <galder at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Re: https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/wiki/Remote-Hot-Rod-Events
>>> 
>>> Thanks a lot for the feedback provided in last thread. It was very constructive feedback :)
>>> 
>>> I've just finished updating the design document with the feedback provided in the previous email thread. Can you please have another read and let the list know what you think of it?
>>> 
>>> Side note: The scope has got bigger (with the addition of filters/converters), so we might need to consider whether we want all features in next version, or whether some parts could be branched out to next iterations.
>> +1. Can we include the notification ack in the optionals category?
>> What about leaving these as the last bit to be implemented? If time allows (not to delay the release) we can add them, otherwise just add them in future iterations?
>> 
>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> --
>>> Galder Zamarreño
>>> galder at redhat.com
>>> twitter.com/galderz
>>> 
>>> Project Lead, Escalante
>>> http://escalante.io
>>> 
>>> Engineer, Infinispan
>>> http://infinispan.org
>>> 
>> Cheers,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

Cheers,
-- 
Mircea Markus
Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org)