Hey Galder,
Another idea that come up today was to use the QueryDSL for specifying both the filter and
the transformer (the DSL has projection).
The query DSL builds an HQL string for which one the server side the filter can be built
on the fly (we already do that with the embedded query DSL).
There are some nice advantages of doing this: build the filter and the listener at
runtime, in a language independent manner(assuming query DSL is migrated), with an API
customers are already used to.
On Dec 6, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Dennis Reed <dereed(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2013 08:52 AM, Mircea Markus wrote:
> Some notes:
>
> "This means that the Hot Rod protocol will be extended so that operation headers
always carry a Source ID field."
> - shall we add a new intelligence level to handle this? Besides reducing the payload,
would allow upgrading the java and Cpp clients independently.
Instead of a new intelligence level, if the client told the server what
features it supports when connecting this could be done more fine-grained,
so that a client could support some subset of functionality (instead of
being forced to implement the specific extentions in one of the
pre-defined intelligence levels).
-Dennis
> In one of our discussions, you've also mentioned that you'd want to use the
cluster listeners as a foundation for this functionality. That doesn't seem to be the
case from the document, or? Not that it's a bad thing, just that I want to clarify the
relation between the two. Another way to handle connection management, based on clustered
listeners, would be:
> - the node on which the listeners ID hashes is the only one responsible for piggyback
notifications to the remote client
> - it creates a cluster listener to be notified on what to send to the client (can
make use cluster listener's filtering and transformer capabilities here)
>
> Comparing the two approaches: this approach reuses some code (not sure how much, we
might be able to do that anyway) from the cluster listeners and also reduces the number of
connections required between clint and server, but at the cost of performance/network
hops. Also the number of connections a client is required to have hasn't been a
problem yet.
>
> One more note on ST: during ST a node might receive the same notification multiple
times (from old owner and new owner). I guess it makes sense documenting that?
>
> On Dec 5, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Galder ZamarreƱo <galder(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Re:
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/wiki/Remote-Hot-Rod-Events
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the feedback provided in last thread. It was very constructive
feedback :)
>>
>> I've just finished updating the design document with the feedback provided in
the previous email thread. Can you please have another read and let the list know what you
think of it?
>>
>> Side note: The scope has got bigger (with the addition of filters/converters), so
we might need to consider whether we want all features in next version, or whether some
parts could be branched out to next iterations.
> +1. Can we include the notification ack in the optionals category?
> What about leaving these as the last bit to be implemented? If time allows (not to
delay the release) we can add them, otherwise just add them in future iterations?
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Galder ZamarreƱo
>> galder(a)redhat.com
>>
twitter.com/galderz
>>
>> Project Lead, Escalante
>>
http://escalante.io
>>
>> Engineer, Infinispan
>>
http://infinispan.org
>>
> Cheers,
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev