On 16 Dec 2016, at 13:38, Tristan Tarrant <ttarrant(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
On 16/12/16 13:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>
>> On 16 Dec 2016, at 09:48, Tristan Tarrant <ttarrant(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 16/12/16 09:34, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>>>> Yes, the above design is what sprung to mind initially. Not sure about
>>>> the need of keeping the log in memory, as we would probably need some
>>>> form of persistent log for cache shutdown. Since this looks a lot like
>>>> the append-log of the Artemis journal, maybe we could use that.
>>>
>>> Well, when the cache is shut down, don’t we have time to empty the in-memory
log?
>>
>> Cache shutdown should not be deferred because there is a backlog of
>> events that haven't been forwarded to Debezium, so we would want to pick
>> up from where we were when we restart the cache.
>
> But you’re willing to wait for the Artemis journal finish writing? I don’t quite see
the difference.
I'm thinking about the case where Debezium is temporarily not able to
collect the changes.
I’m thinking about the case where Artemis is not able to collect the changes. How is that
different? :)