jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcel Reutegger <marcel.reuteg...@gmx.net>
Subject Re: jackrabbit & clustering
Date Thu, 18 May 2006 20:19:16 GMT
Giota Karadimitriou wrote:
> Much obliged for your answer Marcel, things are starting to make sense
> thanks to you. Allow me one extra question which again creates confusion
> for me:
> is1 is just a copy of a shism1 state, so it does not exist in shism2; it
> is just transferred to shism2 (using rmi assumingly)
> 
> By is1.connect(is2); we make is2 overlaid state of is1 and we add is1 as
> listener. then push() copies information from is1 to is2. so far so
> good. However, isn't it a problem that is1 in reality does not exist for
> shish2?

I'm not sure here, but I think it is not a problem, because is1 will just 
be short lived. It is just there to transfer the state change to is2 and in 
the end is1 should be destroyed again.

> It is like an unlinked object state (a copy of an object with no
> binding/relation to shism2).  Don't we lose the is2 transient state this
> way? 

no, I don't think so. there can be multiple states connected to a shared 
state. that's in fact what happens when there are multiple sessions reading 
from the same item state.

regards
  marcel

Mime
View raw message