[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-175?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13233314#comment-13233314
]
Ivan Kelly commented on BOOKKEEPER-175:
---------------------------------------
{quote}
do you consider moving masterKeyCache into ledgerCache? it seems that would be
more clear.
{quote}
The masterKeyCache belongs with the journal, because the masterKeyCache is an
optimisation for the journal. We only need it because we don't want to store
the password with every journal entry. I have been thinking about moving the
journal code out of Bookie. If/When I do that, ill move masterKeyCache with it.
{quote}
it seems that there is a reference counting in ledger handle before. but after
refactoring, you remove it. so is it OK?
{quote}
It was never used. Removing it makes the code quite a bit cleaner.
> Bookie code is very coupled
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: BOOKKEEPER-175
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-175
> Project: Bookkeeper
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Ivan Kelly
> Assignee: Ivan Kelly
> Fix For: 4.1.0
>
> Attachments: BOOKKEEPER-175.diff
>
>
> Bookie owns EntryLogger, LedgerCache, LedgerDescriptors which all depend on
> each other in strange ways. Sometimes we access the ledgerCache directly,
> sometimes through LedgerDescriptors. etc, etc. It's messy and there's no
> hierarchy.
> I propose that we refactor Bookie to only contain the EntryLogger and
> journalling code (this should be factored at some stage also). The
> EntryLogger can then own the ledgerCache and the LedgerDescriptors, and then
> we would how have to have the entanglement as observed on BOOKKEEPER-160.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
