On 27 Jan 2009, at 06:14, Taylor Gautier wrote: > I think while that might be helpful, it's not clear that all edge > cases can be eliminated and even if there is one edge case left > over, it means the app developer will still have to handle the > situation. > > I suppose in the final analysis, we could possibly invent a "hard > timeout" which would say that no matter what x seconds after a > disabled event, leave the cluster and send the node left event, > meaning TC is ultimately responsible for the events and the > programmer in such a scenario simply has to write code to respond to > the events. I could see arguments for this as it leaves the event > timing/delivering to TC such that if we figure out a better way to > deliver more reliable events in the future, in theory the app code > doesn't have to change.
I would like that, I kind of dislike the fact that a programmer still has to handle timeouts themselves and basically setup their own callback mechanism. Imho there should be a unified approach to this. -- Geert Bevin Terracotta - http://www.terracotta.org Uwyn "Use what you need" - http://uwyn.com RIFE Java application framework - http://rifers.org Flytecase Band - http://flytecase.be Music and words - http://gbevin.com _______________________________________________ tc-dev mailing list tc-dev@lists.terracotta.org http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
