On 10/1/07, Mark Combellack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A long while ago, Tuscany used to use the Store [1] interface in it's > Conversational Scope container to persist data. > > However, this is no longer the case as Tuscany-1456 [2] updated the > ConversationalScopeContainer to store the data in a ConcurrentHashMap. > (See [3] > for relevant changes) > > I would be interested in creating a patch that re-introduced the Store > interface > back into the ConversationalScopeContainer and added it to the > CompositeScopeContainer and possibly the RequstContext. > > SVN currently contains MemoryStore [4] which is an implementation of the > Store > interface which stores the data in a ConcurrentHashMap. I would use this > as the > implementation of the Store interface > > Once the Store implementation is in place, it would be a simple task to > create > different store types that would persist the data, for example to a > Database, a > file, etc. > > > Before doing this work, I wanted to check whether people thought this is a > good > idea. What do people think? > > Thanks, > > Mark > > [1] Store package > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/core-spi/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/store/ > > [2] Tuscany-1456 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1456 > > [3] SCN change that removed the Store (see lines 43 to 45) > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/core/scope/ConversationalScopeContainer.java?r1=557567&r2=558025&sortby=date&diff_format=h > > [4] MemoryStore - the current Store implementation > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/core/store/MemoryStore.java?diff_format=h&view=markup&sortby=date > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi Mark
Sounds useful to me. Adding some consistency to the way that system runtime state is maintained will help out with future issues like failover. If looks like the storage mechanism inside the ConversationScopeContainer is similar to the operation of the store. I feel a little uncomfortable that currently the ConversationalScopeContainer has these two levels of collection, i.e. one at the AbstractScopeContainer level and one in the ConversationScopeContainer itself. Having an explicit store will better demonstrate what the difference is. Regards Simon
