[infinispan-dev] TotalOrder and jgroups

[Bela Ban]

On 3/6/12 3:31 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> On 6 March 2012 14:30, Bela Ban<bban at redhat.com>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/6/12 3:25 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>
>>>> Is this something similar to the shared transport [1] ? I'm not sure but
>>>> AFAIK the AS already uses a shared transport. Is what you suggest above
>>>> similar to a shared transport ?
>>>
>>> Ha yes that looks like perfect!
>>> But looking at the diagram, wouldn't it be useful to have those stacks
>>> share PING, MERGE2 and FD ?
>>>
>>> Taking a step further (and getting back to the topic), why not share
>>> the full stack up to SEQUENCER or COUNTER,
>>> so that we have two "virtual" channels but not having the two affect each other?
>>
>> On the todo list: [1], [2], [3]... It's not as trivial as it sounds
>> though...
>>
>> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-844
>> [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-790
>> [3] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-640
>
> Great, thanks! In the meantime, do you think it would make sense to
> hardcode NO_TOTAL_ORDER flag in COUNTER usage ?


No, because this violates separation of concerns. Some people may 
actually want to use COUNTER with total order (maybe it even makes sense 
!)...

I say our best bet for now is to communicate with all stakeholders (e.g. 
Paul for the AS), and come up with agreed-upon sets of configs, to be 
used perhaps over a shared transport. I reconsider my previous statement 
and now think it's best to avoid hidden insertions of protocols.

-- 
Bela Ban
Lead JGroups (http://www.jgroups.org)
JBoss / Red Hat