10:25 p.m.
I finished most of getting rid of the TreeCacheProxyImpl references. It took
more time than anticipated.
All said, it was about 1800 lines of adds and 2000 lines of removes.
TreeNode and DataNode are pretty empty. There's now a NodeSPI which might
need some work, but it's pretty pleasant. I also refactored out a lot of
lock stuff into something that hangs off of NodeSPI.
Some tests may have been messed up (buddy replication and the move feature
and probably some others) and I haven't had time to figure these complicated
ones out. I hope this doesn't upset anybody. If somebody could help fix
these, that would be great.
I would like to suggest the following things:
1. Cache should not implement Node, it's confusing when reading an
implementation of Cache
2. Node sould include useful methods of TreeNode, such as getChild(Object)
and getName()
3. Cache should have a getCacheSPI()
4. CacheSPI should not extend Cache
5. Cache needs move(), not Node. The reason is clear if you see NodeImpl.
In the current design, CacheSPI has to have all the methods of Cache. Why
couldn't CacheSPI be written as a separate object? (It could, but then you
would just have to delegate ...)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link
Mortgage rates near 39yr lows.
$510k for $1,698/mo. Calculate new payment!
www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
9:43 a.m.
On 20 Nov 2006, at 04:25, Elias Ross wrote:
I finished most of getting rid of the TreeCacheProxyImpl
references. It took
more time than anticipated.
All said, it was about 1800 lines of adds and 2000 lines of removes.
TreeNode and DataNode are pretty empty. There's now a NodeSPI
which might
need some work, but it's pretty pleasant. I also refactored out a
lot of
lock stuff into something that hangs off of NodeSPI.
Some tests may have been messed up (buddy replication and the move
feature
and probably some others) and I haven't had time to figure these
complicated
ones out. I hope this doesn't upset anybody. If somebody could
help fix
these, that would be great.
No this is fine, this was on the cards for me but you've saved me a
bit of work here. :-) Now just to make sure none of the
functionality's broken.
I would like to suggest the following things:
1. Cache should not implement Node, it's confusing when reading an
implementation of Cache
We toyed with this quite a bit and in the end we decided to go ahead
with it since it lets people use the Cache directly rather than to
get a hold of a Node first. In what ways do you feel this is confusing?
2. Node sould include useful methods of TreeNode, such as getChild
(Object)
and getName()
There is getChild(Fqn) - and I want to standardise on this. The Fqn
passed in is relative to the Node in question so you can have access
to direct children.
Similarly with getName(), I prefer getFqn().getLast() simply because
it cements the use of Fqns when it comes to identifying Nodes, and I
don't think adding a boatload of convenience methods helps the
interface very much.
3. Cache should have a getCacheSPI()
Again, -1. I had this in place initially (again as a temp measure)
and refactored this out. The purpose of the SPI is to give users
access to an 'advanced' API which would only be of value to people
implementing Cache Loaders, Cache Listeners or custom Interceptors.
Not for typical use of the cache. And as such, this interface should
only be injected into such Cache Loaders, Listeners and Interceptors.
4. CacheSPI should not extend Cache
In the case of Cache Loaders, Listeners and Interceptors, they would
need access to both interfaces. Don't want to pass in a Cache *and*
a CacheSPI, and don't want Cache.getCacheSPI() for the reasons
outlined above. :-)
5. Cache needs move(), not Node. The reason is clear if you see
NodeImpl.
Yes, this is one I have been toying with. What do others think?
In the current design, CacheSPI has to have all the methods of
Cache. Why
couldn't CacheSPI be written as a separate object? (It could, but
then you
would just have to delegate ...)
______________________________________________________________________
______________
Sponsored Link
Mortgage rates near 39yr lows.
$510k for $1,698/mo. Calculate new payment!
www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
_______________________________________________
jbosscache-dev mailing list
jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosscache-dev
6663
days inactive
6663
days old
jbosscache-dev@lists.jboss.org
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Elias Ross -
Manik Surtani