2 votes for core vs 1 for commons, going for core/
On 19 Jun 2014, at 16:34, William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I was able to look into the details with this a bit. At first
thought
I would think having a module that both the client and server packages
could both depend on would be best. However the issue is that these
factories produce instances that implement interfaces that live in the
core package, which means the server/client would have to depend on
core anyways. So I am thinking core is probably the best place for
now.
Thinking about these factories even more it could be useful to use
these at some point in core to allow for non serializable
KeyValueFilter/Converter instances and instead have the factory be
serializable and just create them on each node as needed.
^ Very good point, in fact, why not do this now? It could solve my problem of [1] in a
very clean way. If each node instantiates the KeyValueFilter/Converter instances locally,
I can plug the marshaller more easily? If I can plug the factory, I could try to
initialise the factory with the marshaller and pass that to the cache, which involves the
callback to create the KeyValueFilter/Converter instances, and I can use the marshaller in
the factory to initialise these instances.
[1]
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-4378
- Will
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Tristan Tarrant <ttarrant(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> To me core is ideal:
> when you develop these components, it's as if you were running in an
> embedded environment (which is what the server essentially is), and core
> is the closest you can get.
>
> Tristan
>
> On 19/06/14 16:12, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As I work on ISPN-3950, I’ve been thinking about the location of
KeyValueFilterFactory and ConverterFactory interfaces. These interfaces provide
filter/converter instances to be installed in server/hotrod, but we expect users to
provide implementations of such classes and plug the server with them.
>>
>> These interfaces are currently in server/hotrod project, something I’m not keen
on doing any more, because users would need to get access to these interfaces and they
could start fiddling with other stuff in that module, and I want to avoid that at all
costs, particularly since I’m hoping to do some major refactoring of the decoders in 7.1.
>>
>> So, the q is: where should KeyValueFilterFactory and ConverterFactory live?
>>
>> They’re for sure needed by server/hotrod. client/hotrod-client does not need them
explicitly, but the users need to provide implementations of them and plug them to the
server. With this in mind, core/ might be the best place for it. They cannot live in
commons/ cos it’d would require to move KeyValueFilter/Converter and other dependant
classes to commons.
>>
>> Is everyone happy with ConverterFactory and KeyValueFilterFactory being in
core/?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Galder Zamarreño
>> galder(a)redhat.com
>>
twitter.com/galderz
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
galder(a)redhat.com
twitter.com/galderz