river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: RemoteEvent specification - proposal
Date Fri, 18 Apr 2014 00:56:52 GMT
Thanks Greg, I agree, remote events have an event id and sequence number, so it's very easy
for clients to order them if necessary.

I think for the test I'll create a simple comparator that orders the events at the client.

The test only needs to ensure that all expected events are received and provide sufficient
information allowing them to be correctly ordered.

Regards,

Peter.

----- Original message -----
> 
> Hi Peter:
> 
> You should probably create a JIRA enhancement ticket to track discussion
> if you’re picturing adding some kind of order-guaranteeing comparator to
> the API.   But I don’t think you really need to do that, because the
> usage would be so dependent on the client’s architecture that it
> probably isn’t sensible to put it in the API.
> 
> On the actual question, I’d suggest that Reggie should make no
> guarantees on the order of event delivery (as per the event spec).   That
> being the case, imposing some kind of order is a client problem, not
> Reggie’s.   I would suggest modifying the test simply to ensure that all
> the expected events have been received in the required time, regardless
> of the order.   Perhaps also add some clarification to the service
> registrar spec.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Greg Trasuk.
> 
> On Apr 17, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Peter <jini@zeus.net.au> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > From: Peter <jini@zeus.net.au>
> > Subject: RemoteEvent specification - proposal
> > Date: April 17, 2014 at 7:28:13 AM EDT
> > To: dev@apache.river.org
> > Reply-To: Peter <jini@zeus.net.au>
> > 
> > 
> > The Jini Remote Event specification clearly states that remote events
> > may arrive out of order, yet some lookup tck tests in the qa test
> > suite require events to arrive in order. 
> > 
> > Presently I have an Executor in Reggie, used specifically for sending
> > event notifications, however it is single threaded, to ensure events
> > arrive in an order identical to client registration, to avoid qa test
> > failures. 
> > 
> > I propose creating a comparator clients can use to order events as
> > they arrive. This will allow qa tests, when utilising this comparator,
> > to pass when Reggie is configured to use a multi threaded event
> > notifier executor. This would increase Reggie's scalability for event
> > notifications. 
> > 
> > Thoughts? 
> > 
> > Regards, 
> > 
> > Peter. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 


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