On May 16, 2011, at 7:57 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
I don't like the TCCL either, so I'll repeat my suggestion
from two
weeks ago to just have:
Cache c = cacheManager.getCache( cacheName, classLoader );
sounds reasonable to me to have the application declare it's intentions once ?
BTW I don't like
"cache.get(K key, Class<V> clazz)"
as we're not speaking only about the get(K) method, but about many
methods and this will explode the number of method of Cache; on the
other hand I think it;s acceptable to have a single Cache instance
used by a single application/classloader. You can still have multiple
applications share the same underlying cache and use different
classloaders:
Guys, we're going around in circles. As I said the other week, you can't assume 1
cache = 1 classloader cos for example in the Hibernate 2LC all entities will be stored in
a single cache as opposed to today where we have a cache per entity. And if all entities
are stored in the same cache, we potentially have a cache that contains data belonging to
multiple cache loaders. And the reason for all this is cos we don't support asymmetric
clusters.
Could someone start a design wiki to grab all the requirements?
getCache( cacheName, classLoader ) would return a delegate to the
original cache, having a specific marshaller in the invocation context
as Trustin was suggesting.
Cheers,
Sanne
2011/5/16 Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com>:
>
> On 16 May 2011, at 18:20, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 12, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Dan Berindei wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:18 PM, David Bosschaert <david(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>> On 11/05/2011 17:54, Dan Berindei wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Pete Muir<pmuir(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> Were we developing for OSGi I would certainly agree with you.
However in many environments today we can reasonably expect the TCCL to be set and to be
able to load the classes we need. So whilst making it part of the API is the safest
option, it's also making complicated an API for the sake of the few at the cost of the
many. Further this also seems kinda nasty to me. We know the class (and hence
bundle/module) when we put the object into Infinispan, therefore why do we require people
to respecify this again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David, can we not actually do something here akin to what we are
discussing for Weld? Whereby we can serialize out the bundle id and then find the correct
CL based on that when we deserialize.
>>>>> What if the object is a java.util.ArrayList? Each element in the
list
>>>>> could belong to a different bundle, so you'd have to write a
bundle id
>>>>> for every element in the list.
>>>> Yes, if you know the Bundle-SymbolicName and Version (or the Bundle ID)
>>>> you can find its classloader.
>>>>
>>>> On the other question, if you're passing in a class object then you
can
>>>> obtain its classloader and hence the bundle where it came from. But, and
>>>> I think this is what Dan allused to above, is it always true that the
>>>> class your passing in comes from the bundle that you need to have or
>>>> could it also come from one of its parent class loaders?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly David, sorry if my message was a little cryptic. I think in
>>> order to handle every case properly you would have to go through the
>>> entire object graph being stored in the cache in order to find all the
>>> classloaders/bundle ids that you will need on get().
>>>
>>> That seems like a lot of overhead to me, and forcing the user to
>>> provide the classloader doesn't seem that bad in comparison. Perhaps
>>> we should use something other than a thread-local for this though, so
>>> that users can do a onto the result of a
>>> cacheManager.getCache("A").usingClassLoader(A.class) and never have
to
>>> provide the classloader again.
>>>
>>> In fact I think this is a good idea for the invocation flags we
>>> already have, too. It would involve creating lots of overloads in
>>> CacheDelegate with a PreInvocationContext parameter and a new
>>> CacheDelegateWithContext class to invoke those methods, but the public
>>> API would remain the same.
>>
>> No matter how I look at it, putting a classloader in a thread local makes me
shiver.
>
> I also wonder why we want do this, given we already have a construct called the
Thread Local Context Classloader ;-)
>
> Either we use that, or use some other mechanism.
>
>> Just imagine the mayhem you can cause if you "forget" to clear the
thread local.
>>
>> I've done enough of Apache Commons Logging support to understand that you
should limit the references to classloaders to the minimum, particularly in system
classes/infrastructure.
>>
>> If we need to end up forcing users to register classloaders in these scenarions,
we need to do it in such way that either:
>>
>> - we can detect these leaks (it might be a bit primitive now but old JBoss JCA
code had an interesting way of discovering unclosed open connections)
>>
>> - if we give you on trying to detect them, the impact of a leak is reduced as
much as possible.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
_______________________________________________
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