On 20 Apr 2010, at 15:20, Mircea Markus wrote:
On 20 Apr 2010, at 16:58, Manik Surtani wrote:
>
> On 16 Apr 2010, at 23:45, Mircea Markus wrote:
>
>>
>> On 14 Apr 2010, at 10:22, Galder Zamarreno wrote:
>>
>>> Apologies for the delay getting back to this. I think Mircea does have a
point here.
>>>
>>> I think his suggestion might make the the hash function parameters more
future proof at the cost of a vInt for the parameter number and a String with the
parameter name in the response.
>> +1. This is more generic and the cost is only one additional param (int?),
that's only sent once per HR client.
>>>
>>> I can't however give individual examples on parameters that'd be
needed in the future.
>> What about virtual node count, for a function that uses virtual nodes?
>
> There is no guarantee that we'd ever implement a virt node mechanism.
sure, but we might implement it, and somebody else might implement other functions that
need other params
Then we could address it in a future version of the protocol. As it stands though, I
don't see the need.
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
Lead, Infinispan
Lead, JBoss Cache
http://www.infinispan.org
http://www.jbosscache.org