[Design of JBossCache] - Re: JBoss Cache 3.0 and JBoss AS 5
by bstansberry@jboss.com
Two possible approaches:
ASServiceA --> JBCIntgAPI --> JBCIntgImpl3 --> JBC 3
ASServiceB --> JBCIntgAPI --> JBCIntgImpl3 --> JBC 3
ASServiceC --> JBCIntgAPI --> JBCIntgImpl3 --> JBC 3
or
ASServiceA --> ASServiceAJBCIntgAPI --> ASServiceAJBCIntgImpl3 --> JBC 3
ASServiceB --> ASServiceBJBCIntgAPI --> ASServiceBJBCIntgImpl3 --> JBC 3
ASServiceC --> ASServiceCJBCIntgAPI --> ASServiceCJBCIntgImpl3 --> JBC 3
I don't think I want to limit all AS usage of JBC to a single fixed API. I prefer to have the flexibility to use all features of a particular release for a particular service.
There are 6 JBoss AS usages of JBC:
1) Hibernate 2LC. The 2nd style approach is already implemented:
Hibernate --> RegionFactory --> cache-jbosscache2 --> JBC2
2) EJB3 SFSB. The 2nd style approach is already implemented in the next gen caching discussed at http://wiki.jboss.org/wiki/DevEJB3NewSFSBCache
3) Web sessions. JBC interaction already goes through a utility class; this needs conversion into a proper SPI, a factory for the implementation, and a separate jar for the implementation. Should be pretty simple, just needs doing. JIRA is https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-5820
4) Clustered SSO. There already is an SPI and a mechanism for specifying the class of the impl.
5) DistributedState. I would prefer reverting DS to no longer use JBC over making any attempt to abstract out an SPI. TBH, I think this is a good idea anyway, just haven't done it due to other priorities.
6) HA-JNDI. Same as DistributedState.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4169670#4169670
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4169670
17 years, 8 months
[Design of POJO Server] - Re: ProfileService equiv to ServiceBindingManager
by bstansberry@jboss.com
A question is what to do with the old org.jboss.system.ServiceBinding interface and it's usage in ServiceConfigurator (and OldServiceConfigurator):
public interface ServiceBinding
| {
| /**
| * Possibly override the configuration of a service.
| *
| * @param serviceName the JMX ObjectName of the service
| * @exception Exception thrown on failure to override a configuration
| */
| void applyServiceConfig(ObjectName serviceName) throws Exception;
| }
The new implementation has nothing to do with this.
Possibilities:
1) Leave it there along with the old ServiceBindingManager code in case anyone was using it for something obscure that the new stuff couldn't handle. Minimize confusion for the 99.99% who don't fit this case by not providing the commented out mbean or the docs/examples/binding/sample-bindings.xml file.
2) Leave the interface there but drop the old implementation; if people want it they implement their own. This makes little sense to me.
3) Get rid of all of it.
IMO #3 is the right way to go, but want to get comments before dumping the whole thing.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4169668#4169668
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4169668
17 years, 8 months
[Design of JBossCache] - Re: Eviction redesign
by bstansberry@jboss.com
"manik.surtani(a)jboss.com" wrote : Yup, see my comment above:
|
| "manik.surtani(a)jboss.com" wrote :
| | ...
| | * All other EvictionRegionConfigs will inherit values from EvictionConfig.getDefaultEvictionRegionConfig() for unset properties. This could be done by EvictionConfig when addEvictionRegionConfig() is called.
| | ...
| |
Sounds good.
My only other comment on this is to make sure a richly configured cache config can be built up using an IOC framework; i.e. not just by custom java code that knows the rules. And preferably without requiring a lot of advanced IOC usage to do it; just straight injection of pojos into a tree structure. I *think* what you are proposing does that, but it's lunch time, and I'm lazy, so I'm not sure. ;)
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4169662#4169662
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4169662
17 years, 8 months