Hey there, Here are a few comments based on a quick reading. I might have totally misread or misinterpreted what was exposed, feel free to correct me.
## General I think you are restricting the design to listeners: * that only listen to raw entry changes * whose processing is remote * with no way to filter out the event from the server Is that correct? I can see that it does address the remote L1 use case but I feel like it will close the doors to many more use cases. An interesting example being continuous query. In that use case the listener code runs a filtering logic server side and only send keys that are impacted by the query plus some flag defining whether it's added to changed or removed from the corpus. The key is filtering event before sending it to the client. I wish the design document was showing how we can achieve a general purpose remote listener approach but have a step 1 that is only targeting a restricted set of listeners if you feel that it's too much to chew. I don't want us to be trapped in a situation where backward compatibility prevent us from adding use cases. ## Specific questions When the topology changes, it is the responsibility of the client to add the listener to the new servers that show up. Correct? The API is a global addRemoteListener but I imagine the client implementation will have to transparently deal with that. I wonder if a server approach is not more convinient. At least it does not put the burden and bugs in several implementations and several languages. You never send code at the moment. Only one kind of listener is available and listeners to all entry change and deletion. Correct? Why not have the ability to listen to new entry events? That would limit generic listeners as it is. Do you have plans to make the ACK optional depending on the listener requirement? Looks like an expensive process. "Only the latest event is tracked for ACK for a given key" It seems it's fine for L1 but would be a problem for many more generic listeners. Emmanuel On Tue 2013-11-12 16:17, Galder Zamarreño wrote: > Hi all, > > Re: https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/wiki/Remote-Hot-Rod-Events > > I've just finished writing up the Hot Rod remote events design document. > Amongst many other use cases, this will enable near caching use cases with > the help of Hot Rod client callbacks. > > Cheers, > -- > Galder Zamarreño > gal...@redhat.com > twitter.com/galderz > > Project Lead, Escalante > http://escalante.io > > Engineer, Infinispan > http://infinispan.org > > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
