[Design of POJO Server] - Re: Profile Service api
by scott.stark＠jboss.org
"bstansberry(a)jboss.com" wrote : "adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote :
| | Ok but as it stands, the profile service doesn't know about these deployments
| | unless the server is the singleton. Which means the console can't modify them either.
|
| Yes, that's the fundamental wrong thing about the current HASingletonDeploymentScanner. With the division of function into 2 parts that I described, the registration as part of subprofile function needs to happen regardless of whether the node is master.
Which was also the problem with the refactoring of the bootstrap; these deployments were not visible to the profile service until I updated the ProfileServiceBootstrap to expose them.
That all components are know to the profile service and can be exposed to jon needs to be a goal.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4192220#4192220
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4192220
15 years, 7 months
[Design of POJO Server] - Re: Profile Service api
by scott.stark＠jboss.org
"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote :
| This wasn't something I had in the original profile design.
| In fact for a long time I assumed that JON was going to implement this
| via some plugin to the profile service .
| i.e. it would set the pre-determined managed objects of the deployment
| (based on what has been overridden in the console and in its own repository)
| before it got deployed.
|
That approach just was not working as the jon team could not keep up with the evolution of the server changes. We are still working through whether we have fully predetermined attachments or a delta, and both have issues.
So the repository needs another major refactoring for input into the eap. The DeploymentRepository spi was an attempt at defining the admin plugin api, but it is mixing a few things since its bootstraping from the old filesystem layout, supporting hot deployment, and admin edits.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4192219#4192219
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4192219
15 years, 7 months
[Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: JBM 2 log and ESB
by mark.little＠jboss.com
"timfox" wrote :
| I'd be surprised if the bottleneck is the network if the disk is just a normal disk. Standard network is 1 Gbit these days, but most disks write at around 30-80 MB/s = maybe 200 Mbits per sec.
|
| If you're using a SAN with a load of disks in it, and parallel writing over those, then yes you could exceed write speeds > 1Gbit. (I'm looking forward to our new JMS lab to test this out).
|
| Currently IIRC we've tested JBM writing records transactionally up to about 50MBytes/sec = 400 Mbits/sec on a cheap(ish) SCSI disk (dell workstation).
Yes, of course all internet communication uses 1 Gig these days ;-) And all companies can afford to move to the latest and greatest technologies ;-) We have to support legacy infrastructures: that's what SOA is all about. So it may work fine in some deployments, but it's not guaranteed to work in all.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4192216#4192216
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4192216
15 years, 7 months