Re: invalidation -> transient patch comments?

From: Andrus Adamchik (andru..bjectstyle.org)
Date: Sat Jan 08 2005 - 14:41:46 EST

  • Next message: Mike Kienenberger: "Re: invalidation -> transient patch comments?"

    Mike,

    I think you are right in describing this problem. Invalidation
    shouldn't kick out objects out of peer ObjectStores (esp. since it
    preserves them in the originating ObjectStore).

    A note on the patch - I don't quiet understand the merge part in
    ObjectStore.processInvalidatedIDs. It doesn't seem to accomplish
    anything, as this line:

    DataRow diff = getSnapshot(oid, context);

    returns a locally cached snapshot from retainedSnapshotMap. Maybe we
    just leave modified and deleted objects unchanged in the peer
    ObjectStores?

    Andrus

    On Jan 7, 2005, at 4:54 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
    > Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
    >> I'll take a look at it over the weekend. Indeed I am swamped with too
    >> many
    >> things at the moment, but I should be able to do it.
    >
    > Andrus,
    >
    > If you have time to glance at it this weekend, that'd be great.
    >
    > In case it wasn't clear (since I don't want to waste your time this
    > week),
    > I'm mostly interested in your opinion of the problem itself (like, did
    > I
    > correctly identify the problem?) rather than the particulars of the
    > solution. There's no need to spend any time on the proposed patch
    > until
    > you're less busy.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > -Mike
    >
    >
    >>> I'm sure you're very busy after being gone for a few days, but if you
    >>> can spare a couple of minutes, I'd love to hear your peliminary
    >>> thoughts on the situation described in CAY-256, even if it's
    >>> something
    >>> as quick as "probably on the right track" or "probably not on the
    >>> right
    >>> track." I promise not to hold you to it :)
    >>>
    >>> http://objectstyle.org/jira/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=CAY-256
    >>>
    >>> As far as I can tell, the patch is working, and I'll be putting it
    >>> into
    >>> our production environment Tuesday.
    >>>
    >>> I think that the situation also explains the Oct 9th bug I ran across
    >>> (reposted below).
    >>>
    >>> -Mike



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat Jan 08 2005 - 14:41:53 EST