[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBossCache] - Re: JBCACHE-1154 - Introduce ability to mark nodes as reside

[mircea.markus]

anonymous wrote : 1. The internal code looks like crap. I don't know why you didn't opt for a boolean flag like everything else, but so be it. 
this flag also needs to be replicated within the cluster. Current implementation  only replicates node's underlying map, but it does not replicate Node's state. So the reason of placing the info in the node map is for achieving replication. The nice solution of replicating the metadata(i.e. node's data that is not placed in the underlying map) requires API significant changes that are not acceptable within this release (e.g. the cache loaders would also need to propagate metadata). I'll add an implementation doc to state this. 
anonymous wrote : 
  | 2. You added new methods to an interface that's potentially designed for clients to implement. 
See your point on this one - I don't think there is such a case, though.

anonymous wrote : 3. You add methods to a general interface that are specific to a non-general concern.
I tend to agree that 'resident' is an non-general concern. As it has meaning only in the scope of eviction.  Phps move closer to the eviction layer? e.g.
Region.markNodeResident(Fqn, isResident);
  | Region.isNodeResident(Fqn);
  | 
On the other hand this would make the API a bit cumbersome. IMO the info should be held there, still. Others?

anonymous wrote : 
  | The point is, sure you can have "boolean get/set" methods. But why not add to the interface instead:
  | Code:
  | 
  | void setProperty(Property p);
  |   | boolean getProperty(Property p);
  | 	

This approach the advantages would be a) easiness of change and b) memory footprint.  
a) at the cost of having the code less readable/strong typed. I prefer the strongly typed approach.
b) As per a prev post don't reckon there is a memory gain 

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4090134#4090134

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4090134