Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [corona-dev] Ref count for container.

 

 


From: corona-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:corona-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of O'Flynn, Dennis
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:32 PM
To: Corona development
Subject: RE: [corona-dev] Ref count for container.

 

See my comments within the original email…

 

-----Original Message-----
From: corona-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:corona-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marcin Okraszewski
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:05 PM
To: Corona development
Subject: [corona-dev] Ref count for container.

 

If I'm correct we currently keep container open ref count based on

users. I think we should have it based on client ID (Corona UUID).

Otherwise user wouldn't be able to open two clients for the same container.

[O'Flynn, Dennis] +1

[Glenn] There is really on one container it is shared through the ContainerManager.  The reference count was so that the container would remain cached in memory until no users were accessing it.  The “close” really just indicated to the ContainerManager that it should decrement reference count and if count was zero the container could be removed from the cache.  So, I don’t really care if a user has 1 or 10 clients open I only care that a user still is using the container and it needs to stay in the cache.  Maybe I’m not understanding something about the implementation…

 

This also mean that open/close event shouldn't indicate user's

availability. It just shows that a client opened container. For user,

there should be some online/offline events. User goes online when he

opens first client. He goes offline, when all clients are closed.

[O'Flynn, Dennis] +1

[Glenn] I thought we were only interested in other Users that were active in my Container – since all of the views are within in the context of a container.  I’m only interested in users that have the same container open as I do.  This approach gives me the ability to NOT be available to others in a Containers I don’t have open, even though I may be “online”

 

This means that also some "keep-alive" message should be sent, to detect

crashed clients. Otherwise if a client crashes, the container will never

close.

[O'Flynn, Dennis] This should be defined as a RESPOSITORY-DESCRIPTOR to specify some web service as well as the frequency to post a keep-alive message.  It would be nice to limit only sending keep-alive messages to when the client has not post any other container events.

 

What do you think? Should I enter a bug for this?

[O'Flynn, Dennis] +1

 

Marcin

_______________________________________________

corona-dev mailing list

corona-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/corona-dev

 


The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.


The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.

Back to the top