Infinispan 5.0.0.ALPHA3 is out
by Galder Zamarreño
Seems like this might not have reached the list, so resending it again.
Read all about the release in: http://goo.gl/w8HI3
Cheers,
--
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Engineer
Infinispan, JBoss Cache
13 years, 2 months
Re: [infinispan-dev] [Cloudtm-discussion] Re: Primary-Backup replication scheme in Infinispan
by Paolo Romano
On 2/17/11 9:02 PM, Mark Little wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 17 Feb 2011, at 19:51, Paolo Romano <romano(a)inesc-id.pt
> <mailto:romano@inesc-id.pt>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> let me try to clarify the scope and goals of the work Sebastiano and
>> Diego are doing, as I think there may have been some misunderstanding
>> here.
>>
>> First an important premise, which I think was not clear in their
>> previous message. We are here considering the *full replication mode*
>> of Infinispan, in which every node maintains all copies of the same
>> data items. This implies that there is no need to fetch data from
>> remote nodes during transaction execution. Also, Infinispan was
>> configured NOT TO use eager locking. In other words, during
>> transaction's execution Infinispan acquires locks only locally.
>
> Ok that was certainly not clear.
>
>>
>> What it is being compared is a single-master replication protocol
>> (the classic primary-backup scheme) vs the 2PC based multi-master
>> replication protocol (which is the one currently implemented by
>> Infinispan).
>
> Since two phase commit is associated a lot with transaction systems ;)
> and probably more so than replication, I think we probably need to be
> more careful with the implicit assumptions that are carried with any
> discussions in future :) It should help avoid confusion.
I see you point. But I guess that the one of main reasons why several
details of the Infinispan's 2PC based replication algorithm were omitted
in the mail was not make it so long to discourage reading it ;-)
>
>>
>> The two protocols behave identically during transactions' execution.
>> What differs between the two protocols is the handling of the commit
>> phase.
>>
>> In the single master mode, as no remote conflict can occur and local
>> conflicts are managed by local concurrency control, data updates can
>> be simply pushed to the backups. More precisely (this should answer
>> also a question of Mircea), the primary DURING the commit phase, in a
>> synchronous fashion, propagates the updates to the backups, waits for
>> their ack, and only then returns from the commit request to the
>> application.
>>
>> In the multi-master mode, 2PC is used to materialize conflicts among
>> transactions executed at different nodes, and to ensure agreement on
>> the transaction's outcome. Thus 2PC serves to enforce both atomicity
>> and isolation.
>
> Not quite :)
>
> 2PC is a consensus protocol, pure and simple. I think what you are
> meaning is that some of the participants do additional work during the
> two phases, such as happens in a TM where locks may be propagated,
> promoted or released. But the reason I mention this is because we as
> an industry (and academia) have confused the world by not being clear
> on what 2PC brings. You'd be surprised by the number of people who
> believe 2PC is responsible for all of the ACID semantics. I think we
> need to be very clear on such distinctions.
... true, it's the lock acquisition taking place during the voting phase
of 2PC that ensures isolation, not 2PC per se. I called this approach
2PC based multi-master replication protocol when I Introduced it in my
mail... 2PC here was just a shorthand.
>
>>
>> The plots attached in the mail from Diego and Sebastiano are
>> comparing the performance of two replication strategies that provide
>> the same degree of consistency/failure resiliency...at least assuming
>> perfect failure detection,
>
> And we both know there is no such thing, unless you want to get into
> the world of quantum mechanics :-)
....still there are many real systems that are actually designed
assuming perfect failure detection... possibly relying on some dedicated
hardware mechanism (which encapsulate the perfect failure detection
assumption) to enforce accuracy by forcing suspected nodes to shut down
falsely suspected nodes, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STONITH.
>
>> I'd prefer to avoid delving into a (actually interesting) discussion
>> of non-blocking guarantees of the two protocols in partially or
>> eventually synchronous environments in this mailing list.
>
> I'd be interested in continuing off list then.
well, trying to make a very long story (probably too) short one may say
that:
- in an asynchronous system (even if augmented with eventually perfect
failure detection), classic 2PC blocks upon coordinator crashes. This,
pragmatically, forces to heuristic decisions that may lead to atomicity
violations. Using more expensive commit protocols, such as Paxos Commit
(http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=64636), one can
enforce atomicity also in eventually synchronous systems (tolerating f
faults out of 2f+1 replicas).
- With primary backup (PB), in an asynchronous system the issue is the
split-brain syndrome (this wiki definition is not the best ever but it's
the only I could rapidly find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain_(Computing) ). Unsurprisingly,
also for PB, it is also possible to design (more expensive) variants
working in partially synchronous systems. An example is Vertical Paxos
(research.microsoft.com/pubs/80907/podc09v6.pdf). Or assuming virtual
synchrony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_synchrony), by
propagating the primary's updates via uniform reliable broadcast (also
called safe delivery in virtual synchrony's gergon,
http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/labs/transis/lab-projects/guide/chap3.html#safe).
Or, mapping the solution to classic Paxos, by having the role of the
primary coincide with that of the leader in the Multi-paxos protocol
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_algorithm#Multi-Paxos).
Note that, in an asynchronous system, the PB implementation shown in the
plots might violate consistency in case of false failure suspicions of
the primary, just like the current Infinispan's 2PC based replication
scheme might do in case of false failure suspicions of the coordinator.
So, in terms of required synchrony assumptions, the 2 considered
protocols are fairly comparable.
>
>> Thus I disagree when you say that they are not comparable.
>
> Well hopefully you now see why I still disagree. If the term 2PC is
> being used here to mean the atomicity/consensus protocol only, then
> they are not comparable. If it's a shorthand for more than that then
> we should use a different notation.
Considering that 2PC was a shorthand for "2PC based multi-master
replication scheme" ... I hope that we agree now that the performance of
the two protocols are comparable ;-)
>
>>
>> IMO, the only arguable unfairness in the comparison is that the
>> multi-master scheme allows processing update transactions at every
>> node, whereas the single-master scheme should rely either on 1) a
>> load balancing scheme to ensure redirecting all the update
>> transactions to the master, or 2) rely on a redirection scheme to
>> redirect towards the master any update transactions "originated" by
>> the backups. The testbed considered in the current evaluation is
>> "emulating" option 1, which does favour the PB scheme. On the other
>> hand, we are currently studying a non-intrusive way to implement a
>> transparent redirection scheme (option 2) in Infinispan, so
>> suggestions are very welcome! ;-)
>>
>> I hope this post clarified your perplexities!! :-)
>
> Yes and no :)
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Paolo
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/17/11 3:53 PM, Mark Little wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On 11 Feb 2011, at 17:56, Sebastiano Peluso wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> first let us introduce ourselves given that it's the first time we
>>>> write in this mailing list.
>>>>
>>>> Our names are Sebastiano Peluso and Diego Didona, and we are
>>>> working at INESC-ID Lisbon in the context of the Cloud-TM project.
>>>> Our work is framed in the context of self-adaptive replication
>>>> mechanisms (please refer to previous message by Paolo on this
>>>> mailing list and to the www.cloudtm.eu <http://www.cloudtm.eu>
>>>> website for additional details on this project).
>>>>
>>>> Up to date we have been working on developing a relatively simple
>>>> primary-backup (PB) replication mechanism, which we integrated
>>>> within Infinispan 4.2 and 5.0. In this kind of scheme only one node
>>>> (called the primary) is allowed to process update transactions,
>>>> whereas the remaining nodes only process read-only transactions.
>>>> This allows coping very efficiently with write transactions, as the
>>>> primary does not have to incur in the cost of remote coordination
>>>> schemes nor in distributed deadlocks, which can hamper performance
>>>> at high contention with two phase commit schemes. With PB, in fact,
>>>> the primary can serialize transactions locally, and simply
>>>> propagate the updates to the backups for fault-tolerance as well as
>>>> to allow them to process read-only transactions on fresh data of
>>>> course. On the other hand, the primary is clearly prone to become
>>>> the bottleneck especially in large clusters and write intensive
>>>> workloads.
>>>
>>> So when you say "serialize transactions locally" does this mean you
>>> don't do distributed locking? Or is "locally" not referring simply
>>> to the primary?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thus, this scheme does not really represent a replacement for the
>>>> default 2PC protocol, but rather an alternative approach that
>>>> results particularly attractive (as we will illustrate in the
>>>> following with some radargun-based performance results) in small
>>>> scale clusters, or, in "elastic" cloud scenarios, in periods where
>>>> the workload is either read dominated or not very intense.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by a "replacement" for 2PC? 2PC is for
>>> atomicity (consensus). It's the A in ACID. It's not the C, I or D.
>>>
>>>> Being this scheme particularly efficient in these scenarios, in
>>>> fact, its adoption would allow to minimize the number of resources
>>>> acquired from the cloud provider in these periods, with direct
>>>> benefits in terms of cost reductions. In Cloud-TM, in fact, we aim
>>>> at designing autonomic mechanisms that would dynamically switch
>>>> among multiple replication mechanisms depending on the current
>>>> workload characteristics.
>>>
>>> Replication and transactions aren't mutually inconsistent things.
>>> They can be merged quite well :-)
>>>
>>> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/articles/papers/845.pdf
>>> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/inproceedings/papers/687.pdf
>>> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/inproceedings/papers/586.pdf
>>> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/inproceedings/papers/596.pdf
>>> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/trnn/papers/117.pdf
>>> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/publications/inproceedings/papers/621.pdf
>>>
>>> The reason I mention these is because I don't quite understand what
>>> your goal is/was with regards to transactions and replication.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Before discussing the results of our preliminary benchmarking
>>>> study, we would like to briefly overview how we integrated this
>>>> replication mechanism within Infinispan. Any comment/feedback is
>>>> clearly highly appreciated. First of all we have defined a new
>>>> command, namely PassiveReplicationCommand, that is a subclass of
>>>> PrepareCommand. We had to define a new command because we had to
>>>> design customized "visiting" methods for the interceptors. Note
>>>> that our protocol only affects the commit phase of a transaction,
>>>> specifically, during the prepare phase, in the prepare method of
>>>> the TransactionXaAdapter class, if the Primary Backup mode is
>>>> enabled, then a PassiveReplicationCommand is built by the
>>>> CommandsFactory and it is passed to the invoke method of the
>>>> invoker. The PassiveReplicationCommand is then visited by the all
>>>> the interceptors in the chain, by means of the
>>>> visitPassiveReplicationCommand methods. We describe more in detail
>>>> the operations performed by the non-trivial interceptors:
>>>>
>>>> -TxInterceptor: like in the 2PC protocol, if the context is not
>>>> originated locally, then for each modification stored in the
>>>> PassiveReplicationCommand the chain of interceptors is invoked.
>>>> -LockingInterceptor: first the next interceptor is called, then the
>>>> cleanupLocks is performed with the second parameter set to true
>>>> (commit the operations). This operation is always safe: on the
>>>> primary it is called only after that the acks from all the slaves
>>>> are received (see the ReplicationInterceptor below); on the slave
>>>> there are no concurrent conflicting writes since these are already
>>>> locally serialized by the locking scheme performed at the primary.
>>>> -ReplicationInterceptor: first it invokes the next iterceptor; then
>>>> if the predicate shouldInvokeRemoteTxCommand(ctx) is true, then the
>>>> method rpcManager.broadcastRpcCommand(command, true, false) is
>>>> performed, that replicates the modifications in a synchronous mode
>>>> (waiting for an explicit ack from all the backups).
>>>>
>>>> As for the commit phase:
>>>> -Given that in the Primary Backup the prepare phase works as a
>>>> commit too, the commit method on a TransactionXaAdapter object in
>>>> this case simply returns.
>>>>
>>>> On the resulting extended Infinispan version a subset of
>>>> unit/functional tests were executed and successfully passed:
>>>> - commands.CommandIdUniquenessTest
>>>> - replication.SyncReplicatedAPITest
>>>> - replication.SyncReplImplicitLockingTest
>>>> - replication.SyncReplLockingTest
>>>> - replication.SyncReplTest
>>>> - replication.SyncCacheListenerTest
>>>> - replication.ReplicationExceptionTest
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have tested this solution using a customized version of
>>>> Radargun. Our customizations were first of all aimed at having each
>>>> thread accessing data within transactions, instead of executing
>>>> single put/get operations. In addition, now every Stresser thread
>>>> accesses with uniform probability all of the keys stored by
>>>> Infinispan, thus generating conflicts with a probability
>>>> proportional to the number of concurrently active threads and
>>>> inversely proportional to the total number of keys maintained.
>>>>
>>>> As already hinted, our results highlight that, depending on the
>>>> current workload/number of nodes in the system, it is possible to
>>>> identify scenarios where the PB scheme significantly outperforms
>>>> the current 2PC scheme, and vice versa.
>>>
>>> I'm obviously missing something here, because it still seems like
>>> you are attempting to compare incomparable things. It's not like
>>> comparing apples and oranges (at least they are both fruit), but
>>> more like apples and broccoli ;-)
>>>
>>>> Our experiments were performed in a cluster of homogeneous 8-core
>>>> (Xeon(a)2.16GhZ) nodes interconnected via a Gigabit Ethernet and
>>>> running a Linux Kernel 64 bit version 2.6.32-21-server. The results
>>>> were obtained by running for 30 seconds 8 parallel Stresser threads
>>>> per nodes, and letting the number of node vary from 2 to 10. In
>>>> 2PC, each thread executes transactions which consist of 10
>>>> (get/put) operations, with a 10% of probability of generating a put
>>>> operation. With PB, the same kind of transactions are executed on
>>>> the primary, but the backups execute read-only transactions
>>>> composed of 10 get operations. This allows to compare the maximum
>>>> throughput of update transactions provided by the two compared
>>>> schemes, without excessively favoring PB by keeping the backups
>>>> totally idle.
>>>>
>>>> The total write transactions' throughput exhibited by the cluster
>>>> (i.e. not the throughput per node) is shown in the attached plots,
>>>> relevant to caches containing 1000, 10000 and 100000 keys. As
>>>> already discussed, the lower the number of keys, the higher the
>>>> chance of contention and the probability of aborts due to
>>>> conflicts. In particular with the 2PC scheme the number of failed
>>>> transactions steadily increases at high contention up to 6% (to the
>>>> best of our understanding in particular due to distributed
>>>> deadlocks). With PB, instead the number of failed txs due to
>>>> contention is always 0.
>>>
>>> Maybe you don't mean 2PC, but pessimistic locking? I'm still not too
>>> sure. But I am pretty sure it's not 2PC you mean.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that, currently, we are assuming that backup nodes do not
>>>> generate update transactions. In practice this corresponds to
>>>> assuming the presence of some load balancing scheme which directs
>>>> (all and only) update transactions to the primary node, and read
>>>> transactions to the backup.
>>>
>>> Can I say it again? Serialisability?
>>>
>>>> In the negative case (a put operation is generated on a backup
>>>> node), we simply throw a PassiveReplicationException at the
>>>> CacheDelegate level. This is probably suboptimal/undesirable in
>>>> real settings, as update transactions may be transparently rerouted
>>>> (at least in principle!) to the primary node in a RPC-style. Any
>>>> suggestion on how to implement such a redirection facility in a
>>>> transparent/non-intrusive manner would be highly appreciated of
>>>> course! ;-)
>>>>
>>>> To conclude, we are currently working on a statistical model that
>>>> is able to predict the best suited replication scheme given the
>>>> current workload/number of machines, as well as on a mechanism to
>>>> dynamically switch from one replication scheme to the other.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We'll keep you posted on our progresses!
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Sebastiano Peluso, Diego Didona
>>>> <PCvsPR_WRITE_TX_1000keys.png><PCvsPR_WRITE_TX_10000keys.png><PCvsPR_WRITE_TX_100000keys.png>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel
>>>> Studio XE:
>>>> Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
>>>> Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
>>>> Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb_____________________________________...
>>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list
>>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net
>>>> <mailto:Cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Mark Little
>>> mlittle(a)redhat.com <mailto:mlittle@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> JBoss, by Red Hat
>>> Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod
>>> Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.
>>> Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
>>> Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt
>>> Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
>>> Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
>>> Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
>>> Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list
>>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:Cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
>> Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
>> Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
>> Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list
>> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net
>> <mailto:Cloudtm-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
> Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
> Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
> Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cloudtm-discussion mailing list
> Cloudtm-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cloudtm-discussion
--
Paolo Romano, PhD
Senior Researcher
INESC-ID
Rua Alves Redol, 9
1000-059, Lisbon Portugal
Tel. + 351 21 3100300
Fax + 351 21 3145843
Webpage http://www.gsd.inesc-id.pt/~romanop
13 years, 3 months
5.0.0.ALPHA3
by Galder Zamarreño
Hi guys,
I plan to release 5.0.0.ALPHA3 on Friday morning, so make sure you're done with any remaining tasks before COB today.
Vladimir, I'm looking at your pull request today.
Cheers.
--
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Engineer
Infinispan, JBoss Cache
13 years, 3 months
Configuration fluent API
by Vladimir Blagojevic
Guys,
I need to make some decisions, complete this feature and take
configuration fluent API stuff off my plate. Pete made a good point [1]
about method names in fluent API, however, there is a cost involved in
terms of method duplication in all our configuration beans.
As is, I changed return types for configuration bean setters from void
to a specific type. This will cause binary incompatibility for people
using configuration beans directly in their 5.0 deployments. I think
most people use Configuration and GlobalConfiguration so most will be
immune but some will need to recompile their codebase with Alpha3.
If we go for duplication then we are avoid this problem. What do we want
to do?
Let me know,
Vladimir
[1] https://community.jboss.org/thread/162543?tstart=0
13 years, 3 months
ISPN-293 getAsync impl requires more reengineering
by Galder Zamarreño
Hi,
Re: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-293
I have an issue with my implementation that simply wraps the realRemoteGet in DistributionInterceptor around a Callable:
Assume that cache is configured with Distribution(numOwners=1, l1=enabled), no transactions, and we have a cluster of 2 nodes:
- [main-thread] Put k0 in a cache that should own it.
- [main-thread] Do a getAsync for k0 from a node that does not own it:
- [async-thread] This leads to a remote get which updates the L1 and updates the context created by the main-thread and putting the updated entry in there (however, this thread does not release the locks)
- [main-thread] Next up, we put a new key, i.e. k1, in the node that didn't own k0 (the node where we updated the L1 cache):
- Now this thread has used the same context that the async thread used, so when it comes to releasing locks, it finds two entries in the context, the one locked by the async-thread and one for the main-thread and it fails with java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
Now, what's happening here is the async-thread is acquiring the lock but not releasing it because the release happens in the DistLockInterceptor/LockingInterceptor, so a different interceptor to where the lock is being acquired. So, in theory, the solution would be for DistLockInterceptor to wrap the invokeNext() and afterCall() for when an async get so that all "remote get", "l1 update", and "release locks", happen in a separate thread. However, for this to work, it will need to figure out whether a remoteGet() will be necessary in the first place, otherwise is useless. Whether the remoteGet should happen is determined by this code in DistributionInterceptor:
if (ctx.isOriginLocal() && !(isMappedToLocalNode = dm.isLocal(key)) && isNotInL1(key)) {
Also, if DistLockInterceptor does this check, we need to make sure DistributionInterceptor does not do it again, otherwise it's a waste. I think this might work although it does require some further reengineering.
I'm gonna try to implement this but wondering whether anyone can see any potential flaws here, or if anyone has any better ideas :)
Cheers,
--
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Engineer
Infinispan, JBoss Cache
13 years, 3 months
Dynamic externalizer configuration - WAS Re: Cache startup
by Galder Zamarreño
Eduardo,
I understand your concerns but doing something like you say is anything but trivial cos you'd have to deal with potential race conditions between trying to deserialize a custom object and making sure the externalizer has been configured.
For example, imagine the case where Node A sets up the Externalizers slightly earlier than Node B, and Node A sends a replication message with the custom object. If Node B has not yet set the externalizer, it will fail.
So, I can only see something like this working if the configuration is something that's done in an atomic fashion across the cluster, which would complicate how configuration is handled.
I'll have a think over it in the next few days though to see if I can come up with something else.
It'll be interesting to hear what others have to say about this too.
Cheers,
On Feb 10, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Eduardo Martins wrote:
> That is a bummer, cause global configuration setup needs to be done
> before cache starts, so no chance of adding Externalizers with the
> Cache instance already created. IMHO it will also make everything more
> complicated with the usual model of getting a cache already
> pre-configurated from manager, like done currently in AS5 for JBC, and
> then applying more configuration. Well, will need to rework the whole
> startup model.
>
> The DCM getStatus() returns RUNNING after getting cache.
>
> -- Eduardo
> ..............................................
> http://emmartins.blogspot.com
> http://redhat.com/solutions/telco
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, that's expected cos you can't get a cache without starting it. We're likely to provide such functionality in the near future (https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-627)
>>
>> In the code that you showed, could you check one thing? If you get a DefaultCacheManager without starting it, after getting the cache, what's DCM returning to getStatus() method call?
>>
>> On Feb 9, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Eduardo Martins wrote:
>>
>>> cache = new DefaultCacheManager(globalConfiguration,
>>> configuration, false).getCache()
>>>
>>> The cache is returned already started, is this the expected behavior?
>>>
>>> -- Eduardo
>>> ..............................................
>>> http://emmartins.blogspot.com
>>> http://redhat.com/solutions/telco
>>
>> --
>> Galder Zamarreño
>> Sr. Software Engineer
>> Infinispan, JBoss Cache
>>
>>
--
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Engineer
Infinispan, JBoss Cache
13 years, 3 months
