Hey Alan,
I finally got round to playing with this - I noticed it was part of the
mammoth svn update I did this morning. It all looks fine to me. As I say
thanks for being so thorough about tidying up everything that refers to
this.
One very minor thing struck me the other evening after I'd thought about
this change - it's not all that uncommon for people to be running
systems that may contain a "mixed economy" of broker versions. It's
clearly not a huge deal as the versions of the tools deployed with the
earlier instances with work with those and 0.25+ but the opposite isn't
true for the case of cluster-durable and that might cause some confusion.
I only note this as I've got entertaining memories of the time when I
has a mixture of 0.8 and 0.18 in a very large federated topology.
Between those versions things had been updated to use pure QMF method
invocation for adding/deleting things so the 0.18 tools failed miserably
on the 0.8 brokers but the 0.8 tools still worked with the 0.18 brokers
- thank goodness :-D . Fortunately I'm pretty familiar with QMF ;-) so I
clocked the issue pretty much much immediately (when I found out about
it!) but the poor sod who's job was actually to manage the system was
tearing his hair out for ages until he thought to mention his pain to me.
I guess It's a challenge trying to keep things abreast (and tidy) with
improvements whilst also keeping older/mixed systems running and I don't
have any good answers myself (just saying "upgrade" doesn't cut it in an
Enterprise environment). Documenting the change *might* work, but in
this case where on earth would one put it where someone who may get
bitten by this change would find it?
I've got no real issues myself, but thought it was worth mentioning it
as a bit of food for thought in case someone has any bright ideas how to
manage this sort of scenario (it's bound to crop up again).
Cheers,
Frase
On 01/10/13 22:43, Alan Conway wrote:
On October 1st, 2013, 6:47 p.m. UTC, *Fraser Adams* wrote:
Ship It!
On October 1st, 2013, 6:55 p.m. UTC, *Fraser Adams* wrote:
Hi Alan, I've been tied up for ages on a bunch of other things so I probably won't
get a change to "fire it up" until the weekend to actually kick it, however I
have had a look through the diffs and it all looks fine to me.
I have to say that I'm impressed by how thorough you've been. I did a
double take when I saw the GetOpt helper mentioned cause I couldn't recall it
having any such dependencies - but you've even tidied up references that were
just mentioned as comments - nice one!
As long as you've fired up the GUI and checked the other bits of
"durable" still behave (and from the diff I can't see any reason why they
wouldn't) then I'm cool, but it'd definitely be good to double check - that expansion
animation was a little fiddly :-) Visually though it looks fine to me.
Great. I will try to figure out how to fire up the GUI myself, if you don't get
to it first.
