Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-qpid-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 938C1100EB for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 10:38:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 84357 invoked by uid 500); 5 Oct 2013 10:38:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-dev-archive@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 84134 invoked by uid 500); 5 Oct 2013 10:38:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@qpid.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@qpid.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 84120 invoked by uid 99); 5 Oct 2013 10:38:19 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 10:38:19 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of fraser.adams@blueyonder.co.uk designates 80.0.253.74 as permitted sender) Received: from [80.0.253.74] (HELO know-smtprelay-omc-10.server.virginmedia.net) (80.0.253.74) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 10:38:11 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([82.38.120.72]) by know-smtprelay-10-imp with bizsmtp id ZNdq1m00M1Zorai01Ndqsf; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:37:50 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [82.38.120.72] X-Spam: 0 X-Authority: v=2.0 cv=GOJQiZxK c=1 sm=1 a=kn84lg4yEBBc+Mp7+mj2YQ==:17 a=-TtDL2fbfKMA:10 a=wTxz_KIMNUYA:10 a=3NElcqgl2aoA:10 a=a5Gf7U6LAAAA:8 a=lLX01m9YmgUA:10 a=CxyS8y6l62Hf96-_0UAA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=9KPu5ctRmGYw_D3yKNIA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=PhJJDwy4t86pFoCA:21 a=kn84lg4yEBBc+Mp7+mj2YQ==:117 Message-ID: <524FEBFE.5060000@blueyonder.co.uk> Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:37:50 +0100 From: Fraser Adams User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Conway CC: rajith attapattu , qpid Subject: Re: Review Request 14361: QPID-5197: Remove obsolete --cluster-durable/persistLastNode options References: <20131001184732.28587.94557@reviews.apache.org> <20131001214346.22177.33093@reviews.apache.org> In-Reply-To: <20131001214346.22177.33093@reviews.apache.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000207000404040600030306" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --------------000207000404040600030306 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 this. 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). Cheers, Frase 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. --------------000207000404040600030306--