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

[Radim Vansa]

On 12/13/2013 03:49 PM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Radim Vansa <rvansa at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Btw., when Hot Rod fails to hit the primary owner, should the non-owner propagate the SourceID to primary owner somehow? Or is in this case acceptable notifying the listener about its own change?
> If the call lands in a non-owner, it's probably simpler for the non-owner to send the notification there and then. ACK information tracking would probably be distributed, in which case it'd need to deal with potential failure of the primary owner.

I don't think I understand that properly. The node responsible for 
notifying the client is either primary owner, or operation origin (where 
the write has landed in fact). Previously, we were saying that the 
responsible node should be the primary owner - now you say that the 
origin. When the cluster is accessed only remotely, it does not have 
much performance impact (as these two are mostly the same node), but 
with cluster in compatibility mode the decision could affect the 
performance a lot.
So, do you think that this should be the origin (easier to implement, 
with access to distributed ack registry it can retrieve the information, 
but with higher latency as the ack info is probably affine to the entry 
itself)
or primary owner (in this case you'd have to propagate the source ID 
with the write command).
Btw., what should be the source ID for operations coming from library 
mode? JGroups address of the node?

Radim

>
> Cheers,
> --
> Galder Zamarreño
> galder at redhat.com
> twitter.com/galderz
>
> Project Lead, Escalante
> http://escalante.io
>
> Engineer, Infinispan
> http://infinispan.org
>


-- 
Radim Vansa <rvansa at redhat.com>
JBoss DataGrid QA