On 2014-10-07 20:42, Alexander Broekhuis wrote:
2014-10-07 20:38 GMT+02:00 Bjoern Petri <bjoern.pe...@sundevil.de>:
The Amdatu implementation does not yet support TTL. But is this
behaviour
as expected? I don't think a TTL update should trigger a "set" on the
other
ends..
What do you think?
Indeed, an "update" would be the nicer solution - this is
unfortunately
not yet supported by the Celix implementation - I will add it within
the
next days.
We could also change the update interval from 10 seconds, if you'd
like
to. I just choose a value not that high, so I don't need to wait that
long
when shutting down the discovery_etcd.
I don't think the solution is in changing a value, because then after
that
time, the other ends would still toggle all services because of the
"set",
which should not happen.
I think you maybe misunderstood me?! I would propose to implement an
"update" (instead of set) and in addition to align the Celix update
interval to the Amdatu one.
Looking at the code, a TTL of 0 means no TTL. Is this correct? In that
case
I can set the TTL to 0.
Jep, setting the ttl-argument to 0 will disable the ttl.
If this is not the case, this update breaks interop
with Amdatu, which I think we don't want. Disabling the TTL would be a
reasonable fix I guess.
Well, in long-term I think also the Amdatu implementation should change
to support ttl, don't you think so?
Regards,
Bjoern
