Ayende, Assuming you're referring to me, I am talking about saga persisters, not finders. I think a db-based saga persister with explicit row-locking would cover 90% of needs, but I fully accept that a DHT/PHT implementation would be better. I spent the evening exploring the load balancer, so I didn't quite make it to saga persistence with the DHT. And heck, you probably know better anyways!
Udi, the reason I stuck with a simple one-table approach is that I didn't want to create NH objects and mappings for every saga state class. I have about a hundred saga state classes in the project I am involved in at the moment, and some of those classes have fairly deep relations. Dumping them into a single table with Xml Serialization suited my needs perfectly and saved me a LOT of development time. -tyler On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > > Oh you are talking about saga finders > > On Sunday, September 6, 2009, Udi Dahan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > The reason we moved to the NHibernateSagaPersister is that we could > > use it to automatically generate a schema for the user's saga objects > > including the appropriate indexable columns. This means users don't > > need to understand more than to point it at a given database and it'll > > install and go. > > > > Hope that makes sense. > > > > -- Udi Dahan > > > > > > On Sep 5, 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 kee > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
