To make our lives easier. I don't believe in providing all the
functionality in the world, if 1 cache loader (e.g. TCP) will do. Is
anyone using RPC or RMI cache loaders ? Your call...
Manik Surtani wrote:
On 11 Sep 2006, at 21:59, Bela Ban wrote:
>
>
> Vladimir Blagojevic wrote:
>> I made TcpCacheLoader test pass but tcpcacheloader will not propagate
>> load/store. This was the case even before I made the cacheloader
>> change.
>> Similar situation is with rpc and rmi loaders and we have to figure out
>> what to do there.
>
> Should we dump (= move to the obsolete dir) Rpc and RMI cache loaders
> ? I would at least ask in the forums whether anyone is using these.
> That way, fewer options to support.
>
>
Do we dump them purely to make our lives easier, or because the use
case is obsolete? Do we have reason to believe the latter?
>> It would be great if someone familiar with bdjecacheloader can make it
>> compatible with streaming format.
>
> It was written by a Sleepycat employee first. Now, if we follow
> through with Vladimir's recent thoughts, we can pull most of the
> streaming (and cache loader handling) logic into the cache
> loader/store interceptors, so cache loader impls themselves will be
> trivial. Thus, we would only have to change code in one place.
> Suggestions ?
>
I agree with this - but just to re-iterate, the only improvement here
is formalising the format of state stored in the loaders, am I correct?
Or is it more like removing load/store state methods on the cache
loader interface altogether and let the interceptors deal with this
using loader.put()/get() calls - since this is what happens internally
(within the cloader impl) anyway?
--
Bela Ban
Lead JGroups / Manager JBoss Clustering Group
JBoss - a division of Red Hat