Le 11/14/12 7:01 AM, Kiran Ayyagari a écrit : > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Le 11/14/12 6:16 AM, Kiran Ayyagari a écrit : >>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> I have some questions about the replication configuration... >>>> >>>> AFAICT, we may configure the server to be a consumer, a producer, both >>>> of them, or none of them. >>>> >>>> A standalone server will not be a producer or a consumer >>>> A master server will be a producer >>>> A slave server will be a consummer >>>> A master/slave server will be a producer and a consumer >>>> >>>> In any case, a server will always be able to be a producer as soon as it >>>> allows another server to connect on it as a consumer, and get >>>> replicated, so for a server to be a producer is just a matter of >>>> receiving a consumer request. >>>> >>>> Am I right ? >>>> >>> yes >>>> I'm asking because I added a flag that allow a server to become a >>>> producer on demand as soon as the ads-replicationEnabled flag is set to >>>> true (this flag is used to start the replication handler when the server >>>> is started). Does it makes sense to keep this flag ? Or should we always >>>> start the replication handler ? >>>> >>> prior to this flag we have always looked for the presence of >>> ads-replReqHandler attribute >>> if it exists we instantiate this class and the server acts as a >>> provider/master >>>> I'm inclined to think that teh flag is a good thing to have. wdyt ? >>>> >>> If the above attribute's absence can be treated as a 'false' value so >>> IMHO this flag is spurious in a way >> The reason I added it is that without it, we will either require that >> the user add the replication handler FQCN (not very simple to find it), >> or to start the handler automatically using the defaumt value. I don't >> find both solution very convenient. >> > agree, I just fancied the idea of switching replication implementations > based on custom protocol implementations >> I would rather question the fact that the replicaton handler is loaded >> using its FQCN : why don't we just have a boolean flag, and nothing else >> ? (if the flag is true, we laod the default handler) >> > absolutely, we can go ahead just with the flag except if we want to still > allow > injecting a new provider impl Then that means we need the flag and the replication handler AT. This is currently what we have.
-- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
