Sounds like an overly large change for a micro release on the highly stable 2.6 branch. JGroups' 2.7 branch seems more appropriate. NBST in JBC is not stable tech, so I don't like the idea of destabilizing a highly stable branch to cater to it. From a technical POV, what's discussed sounds fine. ;) Bela Ban wrote: > Copied Brian, who will probably not like this. I guess... :-) > Actually, we should move this discussion over to jbosscache-dev... > (copied). Please reply to jbosscache-dev from now on > Vladimir Blagojevic wrote: >> As Bela and I talked this option simplifies FLUSH quite a bit but >> puts the burden and the *freedom* of retry management on >> application code. My only concern is compatibility if we are going >> to stick this into 2.6.9. This changes flush semantics quite a bit >> and perhaps we can talk about this as well. >> >> On 2/27/09 9:52 AM, Bela Ban wrote: >>> Manik and I discussed this over the phone. Some items we came up >>> with: >>> >>> * Concurrent partial flushes won't happen because if a state >>> requester or provider isin the process of transferring state, >>> it'll reject the new state transfer >>> * Concurrent total and partial flushes *are* possible: a view >>> change >>> and a partial state, executed concurrently >>> o We cannot disable flushing for view changes, because the >>> user probably wanted this with placing FLUSH into the >>> stack. >>> OTOH, because JBC NBST requires FLUSH (because of the >>> partial flushing), we need to be able to disable flushing >>> for view changes. Hence the previous email. >>> o If a view change flush is in progress, currently a >>> partial >>> flush would fail. Manik will change code to make the >>> partial >>> flushing back off and retry, up to a number of times, if >>> this happens >>> o If a view change happens, but a partial flush is >>> already in >>> progress, the view change will fail ! We'll change code >>> such >>> that the coordinator backs off and retries a number of >>> times, before giving up. >>> o Because total flushes and partial flushes are usually >>> very >>> short, the backing off and retrying mechanism should work >>> most of the time >>> o Would establishing total order between total and partial >>> flushes help ? Vladimir and Bela to investigate >>> o Vladimir: make sure that if A flushes A,B and C >>> successfully, but fails for D and E, A only aborts the >>> flush >>> on A,B and C, but *not* on D or E ! A member cannot abort >>> flushes started by someone else ! >>> >>> >> -- Brian Stansberry Lead, AS Clustering JBoss, a division of Red Hat brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com _______________________________________________ jbosscache-dev mailing list jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosscache-dev