- **Comment**:
I have a problem with this ticket.
Appliers are intentionally not synced.
They should not need to be synced.
The question here is how you manage to execute a sync with a ccb being active.
Non empty Ccbs are terminated before the actual sync can start.
So there seems to have been
With the above solution there is the issue that the check is then not done in
fevs order.
By the time the implementer-set arrives over fevs at all nodes, there may have
been creaed a
ccb-operation that interferes, resulting in the implementer-set having to be
aborted anyway.
The local immnd
The applier-names are synced but the class/object-applier data is not sync-ed.
That is intentional and I dont want a solution that tries to sync all applier
information to all nodes.
The class-applier and object-applier mechanism is inherrently local, i.e. only
used at the node where
the
The problem is the feature of *implicit* class-implementer-set and *implicit*
object-implementer-set.
Ironically this feature is parctically useless for appliers.
One possible (and relatively simple) solution would be to only do the ccb
interference checks for
*appliers* at the node where the
---
** [tickets:#1504] imm: Appliers for classes and objects are not synced to
sync-client**
**Status:** assigned
**Milestone:** 4.5.2
**Created:** Mon Sep 28, 2015 04:15 AM UTC by Hung Nguyen
**Last Updated:** Mon Sep 28, 2015 04:15 AM UTC
**Owner:** Hung Nguyen
Set an applier to a class.
Not only class appliers, but also object appliers also have this problem.
sObjAppliersMap is not built up on sync-client.
---
** [tickets:#1504] imm: Appliers for classes and objects are not synced to
sync-client**
**Status:** assigned
**Milestone:** 4.5.2
**Created:** Mon Sep 28, 2015 04:15
