Awesome! Thanks for all your help guys. On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Justin Sheehy <jus...@basho.com> wrote: > Yes, Andrew -- that is a fine approach to using a connection pool. > > Go for it. > > -Justin > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Andrew Berman <rexx...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks for all the replies guys! >> >> I just want to make sure I'm totally clear on this. Bob's solution >> would work well with my design. So basically, this would be the >> workflow? >> >> 1. check out connection from the pool >> 2. set client id on connection (which would have some static and some >> random component) >> 3. perform multiple operations (gets, puts, etc.) which would be seen >> as a single "transaction" >> 4. check in the connection to the pool >> >> This way once the connection is checked out from the pool, if another >> user comes along he cannot get that same connection until it has been >> checked back in, which would meet Justin's requirements. However, >> each time it's checked out, a new client id is created. >> >> Does this sound reasonable and in line with proper client id usage? >> >> Thanks again! >> >> Andrew >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Justin Sheehy <jus...@basho.com> wrote: >>> The simplest guidance on client IDs that I can give: >>> >>> If two mutation (PUT) operations could occur concurrently or without >>> awareness of each other, then they should have different client IDs. >>> >>> As a result of the above: if you are sharing a connection, then you >>> should use a different client ID for each separate user of that >>> connection. >>> >>> -Justin >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
