On 10/11/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/11/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was thinking that ldap may be handy for the registry, but hopefully
> > Chris will join the discussion at this point... Though camel does
> > not support ldap (yet).
>
> This was exactly the road I started going down in order to solve a
> couple of problems:
>
> 1) Distributing a consistent configuration across groups of nodes
> 2) Providing for a central registry that is replicated to other
> directory server instances
>
> This would optionally require a master directory server with other
> backup or slave servers in order to replicate the registry data. The
> size of the network and the criticality of the data would determine if
> you need to run slave servers or not.
>
> The other thing I began thinking about was using the AMQ master/slave
> functionality and just embedding the directory server in the master
> and the slaves. This would mean less moving parts and we could make
> any LDAP replications take place via AMQ transports.
Doesn't apacheds comes with a clustering / replication solution already ?
>
> > So your snippet would actually solve the heartbeat problem. But I'm
> > not sure we can send the whole data at each heartbeat. I guess it
> > depends how bit this data is, but if we have lots of services in the
> > OSGi registry, it may not be very scalable. So we would have to
> > default to send only updates or find another mechanism to send the
> > data (the heartbeat could just contain the url of our container, and
> > the data would be retrieved by another mechanism).
>
> How about just sending the URL and a flag stating that there is an
> update? If one of the other servers wants the update, then they can
> poll that server's URL and a known topic for the actual data updates.
Yeah. However, for performance reasons, it may be interesting to be
able to only publish the delta in addition to provide an easy access
to the whole data.
We could also expose the registry as a REST interface, but it may not
be the most efficient way.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
> Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
> Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
> Castor - http://castor.org/
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
