activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christopher G. Stach II" <>
Subject Re: Shared File System Master Slave with OCFS
Date Sat, 19 May 2007 07:41:27 GMT
Christopher G. Stach II wrote:
> 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
> 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.

Wow.  That sounded kind of snotty. :)  I meant "client that is
dependent", too.

Christopher G. Stach II

View raw message