failsafe as well but as a library (us/geronimo) we don't have guarantee it is stable and controlled and we had some "surprises". Question can be phrased as such "does the time to discuss if we can implement it is sufficient to implement it?", IMHO it is so we can just do it for one of the coming release.
I'll give you a simple example: commons-lang3 has some of these parts, but it is getting cut in N libraries which will grow independently which is the promise of N (N > 1) conflicts for us. So since the cost to have it here is very low it does worth it IMHO and we own a full apache stack which is very valuable for the foundation IMHO. Now if the OSGi impl wants to donate it to ASF we can merge both. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le jeu. 30 août 2018 à 19:42, Raymond Auge <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Well, overall idea is to not conflict at all and stay light (stack >> generally are not worth it for these specs from my experience) >> > > Oh, it's self implemented. i.e. you don't have N implementation. You > simply use the utility library and doesn't need an OSGi framework at all. > You can use it in plain Java. > > - Ray > > >> so I still think the original plan is ok and technically it is easy and >> enables us to make our ecosystem (asf with tomee, owb etc) consistent. >> >> That said we can be pluggable ;) >> >> Le jeu. 30 août 2018 19:14, Raymond Auge <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >> >>> Romain, you may not have seen this, but the OSGi Alliance worked on a >>> (self-implemented) library (yes a non-OSGi library :) ) that might prove >>> useful. It is very tiny so perhaps it could simply be embedded into the >>> geronimo safeguard implementation. >>> >>> Promises >>> ======= >>> maven dep [1] >>> spec [2] >>> >>> Considering the details of the fault tolerance specification (which >>> honestly I have only read the readme ;) ) >>> >>> - >>> >>> TimeOut: Define a duration for timeout >>> Promises supports timeouts natively >>> - >>> >>> RetryPolicy: Define a criteria on when to retry >>> I think this is pretty easy to implement on Promises using a timeout >>> + a fallback >>> - >>> >>> Fallback: provide an alternative solution for a failed execution. >>> Promises supports fallbacks natively >>> - >>> >>> Bulkhead: isolate failures in part of the system while the rest part >>> of the system can still function. >>> If this is referring to executing tasks without blocking + callbacks >>> + failure states, and such, then this is a native ability of Promises. >>> - >>> >>> CircuitBreaker: offer a way of fail fast by automatically failing >>> execution to prevent the system overloading and indefinite wait or >>> timeout >>> by the clients. >>> Plenty of features to combine for this. >>> >>> Just a thought! >>> - Ray >>> >>> [1] https://search.maven.org/search?q=a:org.osgi.util.promise >>> [2] https://osgi.org/specification/osgi.cmpn/7.0.0/util.promise.html >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 6:00 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Bruno, >>>> >>>> Nothing crazy AFAIK, the only task I have in mind (but is not yet >>>> started) was to drop failsafe dependency to align this library on other >>>> geronimo ones (dep free) >>>> and own the implementation. >>>> >>>> Feel free to grab any task you want. >>>> >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github >>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn >>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book >>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le jeu. 30 août 2018 à 11:58, [email protected] <[email protected]> >>>> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> I'm interested in contributing to Geronimo Safegard and help to add >>>>> the new features in the upcoming Fault Tolerance 1.2 Spec. >>>>> Is there any work being executed or currently planed for this library? >>>>> Cheers! >>>>> -- >>>>> Bruno Baptista >>>>> http://twitter.com/brunobat_ >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Raymond Augé* <http://www.liferay.com/web/raymond.auge/profile> >>> (@rotty3000) >>> Senior Software Architect *Liferay, Inc.* <http://www.liferay.com> >>> (@Liferay) >>> Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance <http://osgi.org> >>> (@OSGiAlliance) >>> >> > > > -- > *Raymond Augé* <http://www.liferay.com/web/raymond.auge/profile> > (@rotty3000) > Senior Software Architect *Liferay, Inc.* <http://www.liferay.com> > (@Liferay) > Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance <http://osgi.org> > (@OSGiAlliance) >
