<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Tristan Tarrant <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ttarrant@redhat.com" target="_blank">ttarrant@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On 12/08/14 22:41, Dan Berindei wrote:<br>
><br>
> I like the idea of shipping the cache configuration to all the nodes.<br>
> We will have to require any user-provided objects in the configuration<br>
> to be serializable/externalizable, but I don't see a big problem with<br>
> that.<br>
><br>
> In fact, it would also allow us to send the entire configuration to<br>
> the coordinator on join, so we could verify that the configuration on<br>
> all nodes is compatible (not exactly the same, since things like<br>
> capacityFactor can be different). And it would remove the need for the<br>
> CacheJoinInfo class...<br>
</div>Can't we store the configuration defs in the cluster registry ? If a<br>
node attempts to overwrite an existing configuration based on the same<br>
name, an exception can be thrown.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The cluster registry also uses a clustered cache, how would we ship the cache configuration around for that cache?<br></div><div><br></div><div>The cluster registry is also too limited to do this check ATM, as it doesn't support conditional operations. I'm not sure whether that's because they just weren't needed, or it's an intentional limitation.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div>Dan</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>