On 3/6/12 3:31 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > On 6 March 2012 14:30, Bela Ban<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On 3/6/12 3:25 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: >> >>>> Is this something similar to the shared transport [1] ? I'm not sure but >>>> AFAIK the AS already uses a shared transport. Is what you suggest above >>>> similar to a shared transport ? >>> >>> Ha yes that looks like perfect! >>> But looking at the diagram, wouldn't it be useful to have those stacks >>> share PING, MERGE2 and FD ? >>> >>> Taking a step further (and getting back to the topic), why not share >>> the full stack up to SEQUENCER or COUNTER, >>> so that we have two "virtual" channels but not having the two affect each >>> other? >> >> On the todo list: [1], [2], [3]... It's not as trivial as it sounds >> though... >> >> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-844 >> [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-790 >> [3] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-640 > > Great, thanks! In the meantime, do you think it would make sense to > hardcode NO_TOTAL_ORDER flag in COUNTER usage ?
No, because this violates separation of concerns. Some people may actually want to use COUNTER with total order (maybe it even makes sense !)... I say our best bet for now is to communicate with all stakeholders (e.g. Paul for the AS), and come up with agreed-upon sets of configs, to be used perhaps over a shared transport. I reconsider my previous statement and now think it's best to avoid hidden insertions of protocols. -- Bela Ban Lead JGroups (http://www.jgroups.org) JBoss / Red Hat _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
