Considering that one day, a reattach might be possible, I vote for:
* detachNode (and the feature should be appropriately named along with the message that is delivered - e.g. nodeDetached) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Juris Galang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 6, 2008 9:06:15 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: [tc-dev] DSO disconnect naming * kumar On Jun 6, 2008, at 8:09 AM, Hung Huynh wrote: > * severNode > > Geert Bevin wrote: >> >> Correct, forgot about that one. >> >> So the current suggestions are: >> >> * terminateNode >> * detachNode >> * terminateDsoClient >> * interruptDsoOperations >> >> Others, suggestions, preferences, ...? >> >> On 06 Jun 2008, at 16:43, Alex Miller wrote: >> >> >>> I think "detachNode" was also suggested. >>> >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Geert Bevin wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> we're looking for input here. One of the new features we're working >>>> on >>>> is a method that allows a Terracotta client to forcefully >>>> disconnect >>>> from the server. When this disconnection is successful, exceptions >>>> will be thrown for each DSO operation, allowing applications to >>>> catch >>>> them and take appropriate measures. This forceful disconnection is >>>> final, no reconnection will be possible afterwards and can only be >>>> done over JMX. >>>> >>>> We're looking for input on the method name that should be used for >>>> this forceful disconnection. >>>> >>>> Our design doc currently uses: 'terminateNode', but several people >>>> have already commented that they're not sure it's the best possible >>>> name. One thing to know also is that there are already other JMX >>>> operations like 'getNodeId' and 'getNodesInCluster'. So one >>>> observation was that 'terminateNode' could be mistaken with >>>> terminating the entire JVM instead of just terminating the >>>> Terracotta >>>> DSO client. >>>> >>>> The name should possible evoke the following: >>>> * disconnection is final, no reconnection is possible >>>> * the DSO operations are interrupted, the rest of the application >>>> continues running >>>> >>>> These are other options we already came up with: >>>> * terminateDsoClient >>>> * interruptDsoOperations >>>> >>>> Any suggestions, observations or preferences? >>>> >>>> Thanks for the help, >>>> >>>> Geert >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Geert Bevin >>>> Terracotta - http://www.terracotta.org >>>> Uwyn "Use what you need" - http://uwyn.com >>>> RIFE Java application framework - http://rifers.org >>>> Music and words - http://gbevin.com >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> tc-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> tc-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev >>> >> -- >> Geert Bevin >> Terracotta - http://www.terracotta.org >> Uwyn "Use what you need" - http://uwyn.com >> RIFE Java application framework - http://rifers.org >> Music and words - http://gbevin.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> tc-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > tc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev _______________________________________________ tc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
_______________________________________________ tc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
