James Strachan wrote: > > Thanks for the heads up! :) > > I guess we could make the locking strategy pluggable & we could have > some implementation call the fcntl locking. e.g. maybe using Jtux > > http://www.basepath.com/aup/jtux/ >
Even though one could achieve this, I don't know what the benefit would be. It only shifts the responsibility down. At least the user would want a broker that is dependent on one or more brokers. Each of those brokers shouldn't be dependent on each other for locking, data, or anything else. I can appreciate that some people assume that shared data is available, but shared data is just as easily corrupted, locked, or unavailable. Essentially, when you find a single responsibility and divide it, it probably shouldn't converge somewhere down the line. This current pattern is most likely unusable for any HA situation. -- Christopher G. Stach II
