Re: [infinispan-dev] Hotrod client intelligence
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(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
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev