On 31 May 2012, at 15:34, Vladimir Blagojevic wrote: > On 12-05-31 10:06 AM, Manik Surtani wrote: >> Some thoughts: >> >> 1. Failover policy. >> >> * Does this rely on being run in a CDI environment? >> (RandomNodeTaskFailoverPolicy has a DistributedExecutorService @Injected). >> If so, then -1. While it *should work* in a CDI environment, it shouldn't >> *require* CDI. > I agree. It was more of a wishful thinking on my part, it will not be > required.
We should update the interface then to indicate how you intend to make the ExecutorService made available to implementations. :) > >> >> * Do you plan to include any canned failover policies? If so, what are >> these? > > Yes, at least random and never failover policy. >> >> * Shouldn't DistributedTaskFailoverPolicy be parameterised to return the >> same type as DistributedFuture.get() rather than an untyped Object? > I would love to make it but how can we do it? DefaultExecutorService is not > typed and method of DistributedTaskFailoverPolicy is not either. Can DTFP not be typed? And even our sub-interface of ExecutorService? > >> >> 2. Task mapping policy >> >> * So the existing policies of "execute everywhere" and "execute on data >> owner" (and possibly a new one, "execute on PRIMARY data owner") would all >> implement this policy interface? >> > Yes, for sure. -- 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
