> On Nov. 11, 2013, 7:31 p.m., Andrew Stitcher wrote: > > /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.cpp, line 220 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/15353/diff/2/?file=381997#file381997line220> > > > > [Just my personal preference] > > I think it would be clearer to make this: > > pagingDir(conf.pagingDir.empty() ? dataDir : conf.pagingDir) > > > > and make the code in the queue factory simply new PagedQueue(... > > broker->getOptions().pagingDir...) > > > > In other words the paged queue code itself doesn't know how the paging > > dir is selected it just uses the directory it is told. > > > > It also means that the broker code has the correct paging directory > > from the start if that is needed in the future. > > > > [This is just my aesthetic sense though, and the code isn't problematic > > as it is] > > Gordon Sim wrote: > I don't think you can do that exactly (perhaps I am misunderstanding your > intent). The 'broker->getOptions().pagingDir' won't be updated by > 'pagingDir(conf.pagingDir.empty() ? dataDir : conf.pagingDir)'. I also think > its odd to have two lock file instances for the same directory and therefore > the same file. > > Re "the paged queue code itself doesn't know how the paging dir is > selected it just uses the directory it is told", that is already the case > (and was before this patch also. The logic for choosing a directory is > currently in the QueueFactory class. > > Re "the broker code has the correct paging directory from the start if > that is needed in the future", that is also already true in this patch if I > understand you correctly. If a paging directory is specified, the broker is > setup to use that on initialisation and locks it for future use at that point.
The point about using the same directory for 2 different DataDir object is a good one, and in fact I think my idea won't work because the second DataDir won't be able to take the lock (which is after all meant to ensure exclusive access). What I meant about the paging code not knowing whether it was using the dataDir or the pagingDir was just to minimise it's configuration "bandwidth" - It would be better to just pass it a single DataDir object to use rather than have it select from 2 depending on how they are configured. I'm saying I think it should be the broker object responsibility to figure out the directory and not the pagedQueue itself. In any case what is in this proposal is fine, my thoughts really just expose some limits on what the underlying abstractions are capable of. - Andrew ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15353/#review28679 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 11, 2013, 12:30 p.m., Gordon Sim wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/15353/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 11, 2013, 12:30 p.m.) > > > Review request for qpid. > > > Bugs: QPID-5316 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-5316 > > > Repository: qpid > > > Description > ------- > > Adds a new option as suggested on user list, in order to control where the > paging files go speartely from the other data-dir stuff. > > > Diffs > ----- > > /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/DataDir.cpp 1540676 > /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.h 1540676 > /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/Broker.cpp 1540676 > /trunk/qpid/cpp/src/qpid/broker/QueueFactory.cpp 1540676 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15353/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Gordon Sim > >
