Hi All: I know that this is probably going to see some fairly heavy refactoring in the coming days anyway but I figured it was good starting point for these specification discussions and any decisions/ thoughts will most likely map easily to any future refactored form...
Generic Question: 1: Should the interface specification allow limitation of the form of the names used for the generated clustered objects? 2: How should the namespaces be defined for the different types of objects? getBarrier, getBlockingQueue: 1: What should happen if a queue/barrier exists for the given name, but with a non-matching property (e.g. parties)? getDistributedCacheConfig: 1: Should be called CacheMaker/CacheFactory? That would make clearer what it does. What about getNewDistributedCacheMaker()? I know that the following methods are marked as needing refactoring, but a couple of them I figured could do with discussion: createLock: 1: Unclustered monitor object results in? (then what happens if monitor object subsequently becomes clustered?) 2: Null monitor object leads to? 3: Null lock type leads to? lookupOrCreateRoot 1: Existing root with mismatched type results in? 2: Exception in creator results in? That should get the ball rolling... Chris _______________________________________________ tc-dev mailing list tc-dev@lists.terracotta.org http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
