ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: IgniteMessaging in async mode
Date Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:01:06 GMT
Dmitry,

When you work with distributed system you cannot ignore the fact that it is
distributed. Agree with Valya that we do not need to do anything here, user
should handle this case on his own.

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Dmitry Karachentsev <
dkarachentsev@gridgain.com> wrote:

> I'm talking about real case [1]. User actually doesn't care about
> difficulties of connection establishing or if message wasn't sent. But now
> he has to manually resolve such case. Why not to use existing async mode
> here?
>
> -Dmitry.
>
> [1] http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ignite-messag
> ing-disconnection-behaviour-td11218.html#a11418
>
> 24.03.2017 21:10, Valentin Kulichenko пишет:
>
> I believe it can be blocked if connection can't be established (i.e. socket
>> can't be opened within a timeout). But I don't think that it makes much
>> sense to add async support because of this. Also it would be very
>> confusing
>> as actual send is always asynchronous.
>>
>> -Val
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> I am a bit confused. The "send()" method does not wait for any replies,
>>> why
>>> would it block?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Dmitry Karachentsev <
>>> dkarachentsev@gridgain.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Igniters!
>>>>
>>>> We have in IgniteMessaging interface async support, and it's used only
>>>>
>>> for
>>>
>>>> registering/deregistering listeners, not for message sending. But user
>>>>
>>> may
>>>
>>>> fall into the case, when connection to destination node was lost and
>>>>
>>> user's
>>>
>>>> thread is blocked on IgniteMessaging.send()/sendOrdered() methods till
>>>> failureDetectionTimeout is up.
>>>>
>>>> I think, it may be a good idea to support async mode for sending
>>>> messages
>>>> (and probably without creating separate future for each message).
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Dmitry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message