See below:
----- "Manik Surtani" <manik(a)jboss.org> wrote:
On 19 May 2010, at 17:44, galder(a)jboss.org wrote:
>
> ----- "Manik Surtani" <manik(a)jboss.org> wrote:
>
>> So thinking about this some more, it would seem that there is a
bit
>> more to this. We can add the functionality easily enough, and add
the
>> API to the Cache interface.
>>
>> But would people would reasonably expect this kind of
functionality
>> over Hot Rod as well? And would we need to think about exposing
this
>> in Hot Rod too? Or would this kind of functionality be implemented
in
>> the Hot Rod client if needed, so the protocol remains unchanged?
>
> Does the affinity mean that all k,v pairs within an affinity group
would be stored under the same node in distribution mode? Or this a
wrong assumption about how affinity works? Judging by
https://jira.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-312, the grouping is more directed
at flushing, but
https://jira.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-359 suggests it
could be used for distribution.
Primarily for affinity with distribution. I.e., all entries under the
same affinity key will be colocated on the same server.
> Bearing in mind I need to clarify my understanding of affinity
groups, baking it into the protocol means that is less work for
clients in terms of implementations. If you have 3 client impls, you'd
have to implement it in all 3. If it's baked in protocol, it's down to
the server implementation.
Right, but it also gives clients flexibility in *how* they implement
affinity.
Not sure whether flexibility would be a good thing here? AFAIK, affinity on a group would
be based on the hash of the group name and then find the spot in the wheel? I would
imagine server side affinity would do a similar thing.
I can see however how letting clients how to deal with affinity could speed things up. If
an intelligent client can figure out how to make all the data go to the server where it
should be stored, it would be faster than handing it over to the server and the server
then figuring out how to bundle that into the corresponding node.
>
>>
>> On 13 Apr 2010, at 11:01, Manik Surtani wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 13 Apr 2010, at 10:50, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>>
>>>> rightfull concern, I wouldn't personally have expected that but
>> I'm
>>>> biased as I follow this thread; it's not hard to imagine some
>> people
>>>> falling in this trap.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes; how do we make sure no one falls into this trap? :) How
>> about:
>>>
>>> cache.affinityKey("Blah").put(k, v)
>>>
>>> The problem with "group" or even location/locality/colocation is
>> that they can all be misconstrued to mean "scope". With something
>> like "affinity", I suppose it is clearer?
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> --
>>> Manik Surtani
>>> manik(a)jboss.org
>>> Lead, Infinispan
>>> Lead, JBoss Cache
>>>
http://www.infinispan.org
>>>
http://www.jbosscache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>
>> --
>> Manik Surtani
>> manik(a)jboss.org
>> Lead, Infinispan
>> Lead, JBoss Cache
>>
http://www.infinispan.org
>>
http://www.jbosscache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
Lead, Infinispan
Lead, JBoss Cache
http://www.infinispan.org
http://www.jbosscache.org
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev