On 10/11/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 ?
Yes, it does, but I'm not sure of it's level of efficiency at all as
I've not yet looked at it. I have spoken with Ersin Er who works on
directory about doing directory replication via ActiveMQ, but we
haven't done any work toward it yet.
> > > 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.
Yeah, I really like that idea. It should cut down on traffic significantly.
> We could also expose the registry as a REST interface, but it may not
> be the most efficient way.
Do we really need to expose the whole registry though?
--
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/
