On 12/20/2010 2:30 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
Tom Hobbs wrote:
I know of at least one company which uses Outrigger specifically
because of it's fortuitous FIFO behaviour. I'm trying to encourage
them to move from the Jini 2.1 code to the River release and losing
the FIFO-ness might be an issue for them.
And yes I know, the spec doesn't specify FIFO, like I said, they
needed a FIFO space, and Outrigger "just happened" to behave like
that.
That confirms my suspicion that FIFO-ness is a useful property. I note that
Gigaspaces has optional support for FIFO.
My quick changes to try to fix the current bug will preserve it. If the long
term design loses it for flat-out performance, we should make it available on a
configuration basis.
In any case, I think it is important to think strongly about supporting FIFO as
the default behavior. This helps people see and appreciate "progress" of
Entry values within their system. If better, predictable, performance can be
had from non-FIFO ordering, that would be great. But, without some sort of
implicit ordering, there is a chance of starvation or at best prolonged
staleness of entries which can turn people off of JavaSpaces as a solution for
all out performant network applications, and that is exactly what we don't want.
Gregg
