2:35 p.m.
Manik, I might still need the notification requested below.
Brian, I'd like to know your thoughts on this since it might influence
your work for
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HHH-4521
(actually, I think it does! see bottom)
If we were to handle evict(key) in such way that we only set the invalid
state for that key, the invalidation event received remotely would need
to somehow carry the key that needs to be invalidated. Now, this means
that without my proposed notification, you'd need to have a key present
in the cache that is composed of address:key, since a key with simply
address would not be sufficient to figure out which key to invalidate.
For evict all, this is much simpler cos key can simply be address and
each node can initialise on startup from their local address (or upon
viewChange). This means that when an evict all occurs, all address
instances reside in the cache, so invalidation works fine.
However, for evict(key), it simply is not feasible to have an
address:key key for each key present in the cache in case it has to be
evicted, and without that, the cache invalidation listener event won't
get fired. Please also remember that the invalidation event in
Infinispan only carries the key (obviously!), so I cannot use the value
part to add the key for example.
My preferred solution here would be to have a notification like the one
suggested below. That way I don't need to have address:key for every
cluster member and key in the cache, and I can see when a particular key
was invalidated by an address.
Other solutions include:
- treat evict(key) as evict all: that way the key does not have to
travel to other nodes since they clear the entire cache. That would be a
bit too extreme.
Thinking through it, I think you'd have the same issue with JBC based
2nd level cache:
Brian, When you evict a key, you do:
Fqn f = Fqn.fromRelativeElements(region, Internal.NODE, member == null
? Internal.LOCAL : member, key);
cache.put(f, ITEM, DUMMY);
So the FQN contains the key and for it to be invalidated, you need an
fqn with the member address and key! So, you'd have the same issue.
In similar fashion to Infinispan, all you get on an node invalidated
event is the FQN, so it needs to somehow carry the key that you wanna
invalidate.
On 10/28/2009 06:13 PM, Manik Surtani wrote:
On 28 Oct 2009, at 17:04, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
>
>
> On 10/28/2009 05:50 PM, Manik Surtani wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Oct 2009, at 09:29, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Re: Porting over
>>> http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HHH-3818
>>> to
>>> Infinispan 2nd level cache.
>>>
>>> For HHH-3818, Brian used the cache as a bus to notify that the cache
>>> contents where invalid. To do so, he implemented cache entry
>>> modified
>>> and invalidated callbacks that react to cache modifications or
>>> invalidations where the FQN is an internal fqn which contains the
>>> local
>>> address.
>>>
>>> Now, the trick he uses for the invalidation is that on startup or
>>> whenever there's a view change, he establishes these internal FQNs
>>> in
>>> each node for each of the members in the cluster, i.e.
>>> fqn=/test/com/foo/test/ENTITY/NODE/127.0.0.1:39104
>>>
>>> So, in an invalidation scenario, if you a node puts something on
>>> /test/com/foo/test/ENTITY/NODE/127.0.0.1:39104, the other nodes have
>>> at
>>> least /test/com/foo/test/ENTITY/NODE/127.0.0.1:39104 created on
>>> their
>>> caches which means that the invalidation callback works fine cos the
>>> FQN
>>> exists in other nodes.
>>>
>>> Now, in Infinispan's case, bearing in mind that there're no FQNs, I
>>> could set up such keys when there's a view change too. However, I
>>> was
>>> thinking of another alternative.
>>>
>>> Currently, cache invalidation callback fails on Infinispan because
>>> when
>>> you do a put on key=127.0.0.1:39104, the other nodes do not contain
>>> the
>>> key=127.0.0.1:39104, so no invalidation callback is received. So, my
>>> suggestion is the following:
>>>
>>> Why not have a callback saying: "I attempted to do an invalidation
>>> on
>>> k=x but k=x did not exist". Maybe something like
>>> CacheEntryNotInvalidated callback? It looks to me that it'd be
>>> relatively simply to implement such notification and would simplify
>>> the
>>> code on the Infinispan 2nd level cache provider.
>>
>> Hmm, where would you impl this callback? As a part of the core
>> Infinispan notification system?
>
> The implementation would be somewhere in between RemoveCommand and
> InvalidateCommand. In RemoveCommand, after logging:
>
> log.trace("Nothing to remove since the entry is null or we
> have a null entry");
>
> you'd have the possibility to notify that attempt was made to remove
> something but it wasn't there. I'm not sure whether it'd make a lot of
> sense to implement it for RemoveCommand so, we either add a notify
> method afterwards and make InvalidateCommand only provide a impl for
> it,
> or override perform() in IC, or somewhere in between, i.e. wrap code
> within the if (e == null || e.isNull()) into a method that is
> overriden
> by IC.
>
> Thoughts?
Hmm, not sure how generally useful this is, so as to include it as a
part of the core distro. Adds bloat and complication to the
notification/listener API.
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
Lead, Infinispan
Lead, JBoss Cache
http://www.infinispan.org
http://www.jbosscache.org
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Engineer
Infinispan, JBoss Cache