Re: [infinispan-dev] ReplicateCommand
Manik Surtani wrote:
On 31 Mar 2009, at 11:16, Mircea Markus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some thought on ReplicateCommand.
> It is also used to replicate a single command, which is inefficient,
> as 2 objects are unnecessarily created: the ReplicateCommand itself
> and an array holding only one object.
> Why not replicated the aggregated command directly?
The actual command is replicated directly. See
ReplicateCommand.getParameters(). There is just an extra int in the
byte stream containing the number of commands contained.
There still are two built
objects being built, ReplicateCommand and the
aggregated ReplicableCommand[], that's my concern.
Re:getParameters, I see that there is an array built in that command,
which contains the param list. what about creating an array pool, and
pass them to the command, i.e. the signature would be:
getParameters(Object[] params)?
> Another thing about the name: even though it is correct, it sounds
> very much like ReplicableCommand. I suggest renaming to
> CompositeCommand, or ContainerCommand.
> wdyt?
Agreed about the name. Don't like CompositeCommand or
ContainerCommand though, they both suggest a command that holds other
commands. That is not this command's primary purpose. It's primary
purpose is to "transport" a command across a network and execute the
command on a remote cache.
Yep, see your point re: composite.
So, the interface it implements is more appropriately named
(CacheRPCCommand). Perhaps there should be 2 separate
implementations, SingleRPCCommand, MultipleRPCCommand?
--
Manik Surtani
Lead, JBoss Cache
http://www.jbosscache.org
manik(a)jboss.org <mailto:manik@jboss.org>