Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of jason.dillon@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.182.191 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer:sender;
        b=L12hYUhZCT7qHyRhGjkik90HaPP80c8/e3bM5BRzzlwJQ1MBJcVc80/l41my2ikt/twE8S8jhvj5npU4j+D6Ldr4j1HTEEDQcaQR+MdA8dLy4gj6Y31nNWZJivjvQ44ZY53DYSwyOENKH34UwXdIIX2AFmf0mZQo8DFwhi4YGp4=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
In-Reply-To: <D7B7A719-97CB-4586-B099-5F103B802B16@gmail.com>
References: <4506DE10.3010101@apache.org>
 <63F0E421-4517-4771-BAB1-A04611F0E4E5@planet57.com>
 <45096D9F.2050704@apache.org>
 <3A4C632D-A3E5-4CDA-9539-01EAB71A392E@planet57.com>
 <D7B7A719-97CB-4586-B099-5F103B802B16@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <80781A51-C185-4583-A78E-9A7FA00575B5@planet57.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com>
Subject: Re: gcache imlementation ideas[long]
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:23:49 -0700
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Sender: Jason Dillon <jason.dillon@gmail.com>

Aight... well, lets see the interfaces and the socket impl and I will  
write the jms impl and see which fairs better with the most features :-P

--jason


On Sep 14, 2006, at 8:17 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:

> I'm with Jeff on this one...
>
> I've seen this done w/ JMS. However, there's so much JMS overhead  
> that you don't need (message formats, persistent messages, delivery  
> semantics, etc).
>
> I recall Jeff was talking to Hiram about ActiveIO -- that's the  
> more appropriate way to go. Reuse common technology, but not all of  
> AMQ.
>
> --kevan
>
> On Sep 14, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> On Sep 14, 2006, at 7:56 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>> The JMS provider would be a pluggable comm strategy.  For  
>>> performance
>>> reasons, I want to start with TCP communication.
>>
>> Why do you think that AMQ will not perform well?
>>
>>
>>> I definitely want to
>>> have a JMS strategy...maybe next.  But initially I don't want any
>>> dependencies on other servers or brokers.
>>>
>>> With that said, after looking at openwire, the comm marshaller for
>>> ActiveMQ, there is a lot to leverage there and will prevent a  
>>> rewrite of
>>> the comm layer.  So, there will be some use of that code base  
>>> initially.
>>
>> IMO, AMQ already provides a rich clustering environment, with  
>> failover, master-slave, dynamic discovery, firewall-happy  
>> transports, monitoring and a heck of a lot more.
>>
>> Seems like it would be a waste to go and re-implement all of  
>> that.  It also seems that if you wanted to get something up  
>> sooner, that it would be much easier to design a AMQ strategy  
>> first, which means that you only have to worry about the message  
>> passing to sync up and invalidate state, rather than all of the  
>> details of who is in what cluster, failing over, blah, blah...
>>
>> And, I guess that if after that was implemented you still thought  
>> it was not fast enough, then it might be better to get AMQ fixed  
>> to perform better, though I don't think that the performance using  
>> AMQ will differ all that much from a custom socket protocol to  
>> pass messages.
>>
>> I am a huge fan of AMQ and would really like to see G exploit its  
>> network communications facilities as much as possible.
>>
>> IMO, this is the best way to get the most features for clustering  
>> up and running sooner, with less code to maintain.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>