On 1 Feb 2012, at 14:39, Dan Berindei wrote: >>> >>> The getCache() timeout should not be increased at all. Instead I would >>> propose that getCache() returns a functional cache immediately, even >>> if the cache didn't receive any data, and it works solely as an L1 >>> cache until the administrator allows it to join. I'd even make it >>> possible to designate a cache as an L1-only cache, so it's never an >>> owner for any key. >> >> I agree that would be very nice, but makes it much more complex to >> implement in 5.2 as well: functional L1 means that the other nodes >> must accept this node as part of the grid, including for L1 >> invalidation purposes. > > I don't think L1 would be a problem, the L1 code doesn't assume that > the requestor is in the CH. That would basically be the only > difference between a "normal" node and a "L1-only" node.
No, but the Address does need to be in the View. But I suppose this depends on your decoupling of the 2PC view installation from state transfer and consistent hash installation. :) -- Manik Surtani [email protected] twitter.com/maniksurtani Lead, Infinispan http://www.infinispan.org
_______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
