On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:33 AM Vladimir Blagojevic <vblagoje(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Will,
I like the API proposal but one thing that jumps out for me is to combine
or rather overload singleNodeSubmission with singleNodeSubmission(int
failOverCount) and remove failoverRetries method. The first
singleNodeSubmission does not failover while the second one does with the
specified failOverCount. That way we don't have to keep state and throw
IllegalStateException when someone erroneously calls failOverRetries.
Sounds good to me. Not sure why I didn't think of that before. It felt
awkward to me as well. Guess I was stuck on having the method have the
name failover in it :)
Vladimir
On 2017-02-21 10:11 AM, William Burns wrote:
As many of you are may or may not be aware the ClusterExecutor interface
and implementation were introduced into Infinispan 8.2 [1]. This class is
a new API that can be used to submit commands to other nodes in a way
similar to DistributedExecutor does while also not being tied to a cache.
The first implementation of ClusterExecutor did not include a couple
features that DistributedExecutor has. For this post I will concentrate on
failover and execution policies. My plan is to introduce some API to
Infinispan 9 to allow for ClusterExecutor to also offer these capabilities.
The first change is that I wanted to add additional options to Execution
Policies. The execution policy is used to limit sending messages to nodes
based on their topology (site, rack & machine id). The old execution
policy allowed for SAME_MACHINE, SAME_RACK, SAME_SITE and ALL. I plan on
adding the opposite of the SAME and also supporting DIFFERENT_MACHINE,
DIFFERENT_RACK and DIFFERENT_SITE in case if the user wants to ensure that
data is processed elsewhere. Unless you think this is unneeded?
The API changes I am thinking of are as below (included in email to allow
for responses inline). Note that existing methods would be unchanged and
thus submit and execute methods would be used to send commands still. One
big difference is that I have not allowed for the user to control the
failover node or the target node when doing a single submission with
multiple available targets. In my mind if a user wants this they should do
it themselves manually, but this is open for discussion as well.
/** * When a command is submitted it will only be submitted to one node of the available
nodes, there is no strict * requirements as to which node is chosen and is implementation
specific. Fail over can be used with configuration, * please see {@link
ClusterExecutor#failOverRetries(int)} for more information. * @return this executor again
with commands submitted to a single node */ClusterExecutor singleNodeSubmission();
/** * When a command is submitted it will submit this command to all of the available
nodes. Fail over is not supported * with this configuration. This is the default
submission method. * @return this executor again with commands submitted to all nodes
*/ClusterExecutor allNodeSubmission();
/** * Enables fail over to occur when using {@link
ClusterExecutor#singleNodeSubmission()}. If the executor * is not currently in the single
node submission mode, this method will throw {@link IllegalStateException}. * When fail
over count is applied, a submitted command will be retried up to that many times on the
available * command up to desired amount of times until an exception is not met. The one
exception that is not retried is a * TimeoutException since this could be related to
{@link ClusterExecutor#timeout(long, TimeUnit)}. Each time the * fail over occurs a random
node in the available nodes will be used (trying not to reuse the same node). * @param
failOverCount how many times this executor will attempt a failover * @return this executor
again with fail over retries applied * @throws IllegalStateException if this cluster
executor is not currently configured for single node submission */ClusterExecutor
failOverRetries(int failOverCount) throws IllegalStateException;
/** * Allows for filtering of address nodes by only allowing addresses that match the
given execution policy to be used. * Note this method overrides any previous filtering
that was done (ie. calling * {@link ClusterExecutor#filterTargets(Collection)}). * @param
policy the policy to determine which nodes can be used * @return this executor again with
the execution policy applied to determine which nodes are contacted */ClusterExecutor
filterTargets(ClusterExecutionPolicy policy);
/** * Allows for filtering of address nodes dynamically per invocation. The predicate is
applied to each member that * is part of the execution policy. Note that this method
overrides any previous * filtering that was done (ie. calling {@link
ClusterExecutor#filterTargets(Collection)}). * @param policy the execution policy applied
before predicate to allow only nodes in that group * @param predicate the dynamic
predicate applied each time an invocation is done * @return */ClusterExecutor
filterTargets(ClusterExecutionPolicy policy, Predicate<? super Address> predicate);
Thanks for any input,
- Will
[1]
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/blob/master/core/src/main/java/o...
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing
listinfinispan-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://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