What are the advantages of that vs. using PHT/DHT? On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Tyler Burd <[email protected]> wrote:
> I completely agree that an NH dependency would be bad. I think a vanilla > ADO persister would be a good thing to include. > > NSB used to have the DbBlobSagaPersister. It would be nice if there was > something similar in RSB, but using an NTEXT field and the message > serializer instead of binary serialization. > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jason,Because they brought a lot of complexity to the table. >> I actually think that the local DHT + optimistic is something that I would >> like to end up with. >> We can specify a local, self deployed, version for development, and scale >> up for a remote one for farm scenario and a full DHT cluster for >> reliability. >> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Jason Meckley <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> I dug into the code and this finally clicked and I understand the >>> problem of balancing configuration & extensibility. >>> I spend most of my time in the previous revision since it's all in >>> tack. >>> in looking through it I can understand why you want to re-design how >>> DHT works. Why remove the persister strategies and local DHT Client >>> though? that all seems to work without issue. >>> >>> I think a db persister would be straight forward. were talking about a >>> single table with 6 columns. wrap ADO.Net with a simple facade and >>> call it a day. you could add a deploy action to build the schema. >>> have it pull from the config file and add the table under another >>> schema. similar to Rhino.Security. >>> >>> tyler i would be interested in your database implementation. for my >>> immediate need I ported Local DHT Client and OptimisticStatePersister >>> to my project to work against the latest RSB build. >>> >>> On Sep 3, 9:36 am, Tyler Burd <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > I'm currently using a custom saga persister that I'd be happy to share, >>> but >>> > it uses NH and I doubt you want to make that a dependency of RSB. I >>> found >>> > it was simple to write (5 minutes), simple to understand, and it just >>> > works. I didn't need *extreme* throughput, though, and I expect that's >>> the >>> > case for the vast majority of projects, so my vote is +1 for a simple >>> db >>> > persister. It's still going to be a hell of a lot more scalable than a >>> > traditional thread hungry ASP NET app. >>> > >>> > -tyler >>> > >>> > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > Right now I am working on the ESB parts of the port, and I am >>> thinking hard >>> > > again about what should and shouldn't be in there.On the one hand, >>> one of >>> > > the major reasons that I created RSB is that I wanted to make >>> something that >>> > > is developer friendly and easy to get started. >>> > > On the other hand, there are some things where we do want to provide >>> > > extensibility and customization for the users. >>> > > For the most part, I think we managed to do that by using the >>> container in >>> > > some clever ways, but with the DHT saga storage I think I really >>> messed it >>> > > up. >>> > > It is complex, both to set it up and to make use of it and to >>> understand >>> > > how it works. >>> > > I have tentatively removed it from the project. >>> > > I would like to provide a saga storage that is easy to use and fit >>> the bill >>> > > for most of the operations that you need, without bringing undue >>> burden for >>> > > the administrator or developer. >>> > >>> > > Last week I had several discussions with Udi about that, and he >>> pointed out >>> > > that the most commonly used and easiest to reason about is a locked >>> saga >>> > > state. That is, during the execution of a transaction, the state of >>> the saga >>> > > is locked. A common example would be using a DB to handle that while >>> using >>> > > serializable transactions. >>> > >>> > > I still want to enable the "let us just use this" mode, and I still >>> want to >>> > > avoid dependencies on infrastructure that isn't xcopy deployable. >>> > > We can support this easily if we will utilize only the PHT. But that >>> will >>> > > work for local mode only. We can make use of the DHT, but then we >>> need to >>> > > provide a solution for farm wide locking. A lot of the design behind >>> the DHT >>> > > is based on always on system, because I have a requirement to keep >>> the >>> > > system going while nodes are coming and going. Locking is... >>> interesting in >>> > > this scenario. I would love to hear options about that. >>> > >>> > > Or, we could just provide a simple DB saga state and let the DB >>> handle that >>> > > and clustering to handle fail over. >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
