qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fraser Adams <fraser.ad...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject Re: Review Request 14361: QPID-5197: Remove obsolete --cluster-durable/persistLastNode options
Date Sat, 05 Oct 2013 10:37:50 GMT
Hey Alan,
I finally got round to playing with this - I noticed it was part of the 
mammoth svn update I did this morning. It all looks fine to me. As I say 
thanks for being so thorough about tidying up everything that refers to 

One very minor thing struck me the other evening after I'd thought about 
this change - it's not all that uncommon for people to be running 
systems that may contain a "mixed economy" of  broker versions. It's 
clearly not a huge deal as the versions of the tools deployed with the 
earlier instances with work with those and 0.25+ but the opposite isn't 
true for the case of cluster-durable and that might cause some confusion.

I only note this as I've got entertaining memories of the time when I 
has a mixture of 0.8 and 0.18 in a very large federated topology. 
Between those versions things had been updated to use pure QMF method 
invocation for adding/deleting things so the 0.18 tools failed miserably 
on the 0.8 brokers but the 0.8 tools still worked with the 0.18 brokers 
- thank goodness :-D . Fortunately I'm pretty familiar with QMF ;-) so I 
clocked the issue pretty much much immediately (when I found out about 
it!) but the poor sod who's job was actually to manage the system was 
tearing his hair out for ages until he thought to mention his pain to me.

I guess It's a challenge trying to keep things abreast (and tidy) with 
improvements whilst also keeping older/mixed systems running and I don't 
have any good answers myself (just saying "upgrade" doesn't cut it in an 
Enterprise environment). Documenting the change *might* work, but in 
this case where on earth would one put it where someone who may get 
bitten by this change would find it?

I've got no real issues myself, but thought it was worth mentioning it 
as a bit of food for thought in case someone has any bright ideas how to 
manage this sort of scenario (it's bound to crop up again).


On 01/10/13 22:43, Alan Conway wrote:

    On October 1st, 2013, 6:47 p.m. UTC, *Fraser Adams* wrote:

        Ship It!

    On October 1st, 2013, 6:55 p.m. UTC, *Fraser Adams* wrote:

        Hi Alan, I've been tied up for ages on a bunch of other things so I probably won't
get a change to "fire it up" until the weekend to actually kick it, however I have had a look
through the diffs and it all looks fine to me.

        I have to say that I'm impressed by how thorough you've been. I did a double take
when I saw the GetOpt helper mentioned cause I couldn't recall it having any such dependencies
- but you've even tidied up references that were just mentioned as comments - nice one!

        As long as you've fired up the GUI and checked the other bits of "durable" still behave
(and from the diff I can't see any reason why they wouldn't) then I'm cool, but it'd definitely
be good to double check - that expansion animation was a little fiddly :-) Visually though
it looks fine to me.

Great. I will try to figure out how to fire up the GUI myself, if you don't get to it first.

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