IDP Cluster going forward (JDK 7)

[Cantor, Scott]

On 5/29/13 8:45 AM, "Manuel Haim" <haim at hrz.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

>Even though Infinispan provides a native Java Map, you have to keep in
>mind that it does not work as seamless as Terracotta's real-time JVM
>replication.

Yes, this is why I don't take seriously the idea that Ehcache is a
migration path for DSO. It's apples and oranges.

> (When I last checked Infinispan, replication did only take
>place each time you put an object into the map, but not on intermediate
>changes to the object itself, and there was no replication of transient
>fields; the same applies for Ehcache or Hazelcast.)

What is the impact of this on the current plugins that exist? Terracotta
is really a special case, it's not a plugin, it's just replicating the
content of the in-memory plugin.

>I think I could easily adopt our Memcache plugin to support Infinispan,
>Ehcache, Hazelcast or even JDBC or what you want, but due to the lack of
>transient field persistence, it would never reach the same compatibility
>as the Terracotta way.

Coming into this cold, I need to understand better the compatibility
issues that are involved.

As far as V3 is concerned, all of this is exactly why I proposed a very
ugly, brute force storage API that doesn't involve any tricks. If we
change something, we update it in the store so the plugin can update the
record. Efficiency and elegance are completely beside the point for me
here.

-- Scott