Il giorno lun 11 feb 2019 alle ore 06:03 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 6:09 AM Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri <jujj...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Thanks for bringing this up. To start with, can we put all forms on LAC in > > a doc? i.e we have more than one way to read and write LAC. > > 1. What are the ways to send LAC to Bookies? > > 2. What are the ways bookies store the LAC? > > 3. What are the ways client can learn about LAC > > and the interfaces and configuration parameters around it, and what are the > > usecases of these? > > > > +1 I would also like to see a doc (via BP on google doc) for this as well. > > > > > I may be asking for more work here, but I think that way we can make more > > informed decision. What do you think Enrico? > > If you lead this, I will be more than happy to fill-in parts of this doc, > > and even review them.
Sure I am starting right now the discussion and I am going to lead these improvements. I will create a draft soon on Google Docs. Enrico > > > > Thanks, > > JV > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 1:23 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Bookkeepers, > > > I am trying to draw the best roadmap with the goal of consolidating > > > ExplicitLAC feature. > > > Currently I have two big topics: > > > - on the reader side I would like enable new API users to leverage > > > ExplicitLAC, transparently (no new configuration, now readflags, no > > > explicit API calls) > > > - on the writer side make ExplicitLAC work better with DEFERRED_SYNC > > (like > > > having a background force() together with the sending of ExplicitLAC) > > > > > > Currently I want to spend time mostly on the reader side, because it will > > > enable new clients to use ExplicitLAC. > > > > > > My current (new) idea is to add a new flag on readEntry() RPC with which > > > the client asks for the ExplicitLAC together with the entry. > > > > > > With this change we can support backward compatibility easily. > > > New clients will add that flag and they will be able to read the new > > > optional ExplicitLAC field. > > > Old bookies will ignore the flag. > > > Old clients won't ask for ExplicitLAC. > > > > > > If there is no ExplicitLAC this new feature won't add costs on the wire. > > > > > > After this discussion on the ML I will post a BP, if we agree that this > > > approach makes sense. > > > > > > I have started to draft a prototype yet, I would like to hear your > > opinion > > > (as usual I have very limited time) > > > > > > Regards > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jvrao > > --- > > First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then > > you win. - Mahatma Gandhi > >
