Yes you certainly are. I was able to get my doubts cleared on reading your post.
Regards Manu On 6/14/07, Mohammad Nour El-Din <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cool I am genius ;-) On 6/13/07, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote: > > Just to make sure I am following this subject right. > > > > The client is going to have a servers list, and initially it will be > > attached to a server, lets say the server which created this client > > interface, and if for instance this server failed over the client is > going > > to use the next server in it current list which has a version VerX for > > example, and while the client is contacting the other server sending it > the > > request with the its current version, the server will find out that the > > version is not correct and it will respond to the client with the new > > version. Did I understand the whole discussion right ? > > > Yep. > > Jeff > > > > > > > > On 6/13/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Jun 13, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > >> > >> > Last time I helped with clustering (on another J2EE server), the > >> > term thrown around was "cluster topology", which is not only the > >> > membership of the server but the organization of the nodes in the > >> > cluster. Over time servers join and leave the cluster and nodes > >> > can be repurposed. After each mutation of the topology, the > >> > version number would increment (or the hash changes). > >> > >> What would help to mitigate this issue would be to have some value > >> that indicates a state change of the server and include this in the > >> hash calculation. > >> > > > > > > > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour
