[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-628?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13801604#comment-13801604
]
Ivan Kelly commented on BOOKKEEPER-628:
---------------------------------------
There's two reasons to provide an interface. Firstly to create well defined
isolated contracts between the components of your system, and secondly to allow
multiple implementations of this contract to coexist. In this case, we only
want the first, as there's no driving usecase to move away from zookeeper for
bookie registration. Following from this, RegistrationManagerFactory is
unneeded. The interfaces in RegistrationManager are mostly fine though. I don't
think that BookieRegistrationManager should have separate calls for the Cookie.
bookieId <-> cookie is a 1-1 relationship. Why does ClientRegistrationManager
have a createBookieInstance call? Also, the placement policy should have
nothing to do with this interface.It's a decision that can be taken in total
isolation on the client.
I agree with Sijie that it would be good to sort out the session handling
before doing this work though. Or doing it in tandem. At least for the listener
part.
> Improve bookie registration interface
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: BOOKKEEPER-628
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-628
> Project: Bookkeeper
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: bookkeeper-client, bookkeeper-server
> Reporter: Rakesh R
> Assignee: Rakesh R
> Fix For: 4.3.0
>
> Attachments: BOOKKEEPER-628-interface-version-1.patch,
> BOOKKEEPER-628-interface-version-2.patch,
> BOOKKEEPER-628-interface-version.patch
>
>
> The idea is to improve/generalize the bookie registration process
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
