Re: [cosmos-dev] i9 QA - Testing with multiple Data Brokers

[Mark D Weitzel <weitzelm@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Hubert on this.  We
went with the one broker solution to keep it as simple as possible. We
can re-evaluate after 1.0.
-mw
 
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mark Weitzel | STSM | IBM Software Group | Tivoli | Autonomic Computing
| (919) 543 0625 | weitzelm@xxxxxxxxxx

Re: [cosmos-dev] i9 QA - Testing with multiple Data Brokers

Hubert H Leung

to:

Cosmos Dev

02/05/08 09:58 AM

Sent by:	cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:	"Doma, Srinivas Reddy"

Please respond to Cosmos Dev <cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

---

Both the domain and broker are put in the same war file for several reasons:
1. We only claim to support a single broker in this release, so it's better
to make the domain vs. broker distinction more transparent.  With
only one broker, the domain really has no practical importance.
2. Smaller footprint: Both domain and broker actually share the same implementation.
 They are both service groups.  Packaging domain and broker separately
would mean duplicating the code.  It's just a matter of changing a
configuration file to add or remove a service group.  
3. Ease of deployment:  Having one fewer web app to worry about will
arguably make the demo simpler. 

Having said that, the currently implementation does support the multiple
broker scenario.  You can deploy the cosmos.war on several servers,
and assign one of them the role of the management domain.  On a sever
where you just want to assume the role a broker, or the management domain
(i.e. not both), update the muse.xml file to remove the corresonding resource-type
section.  (I have not documented this feature.)  

It was a deliberate design decision to support a two-level address lookup
architecture, and not to claim support for multiple brokers.  I would
defer to Mark, Don and Jimmy to confirm this decision.  The test plan
should reflect our support statement.   

At the moment, I don't see the need to have two separate war files for
the domain and broker. 


Regards,
_________________________
Hubert Leung
IBM Toronto Lab
hkyleung@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3382

"Mohsin, Jimmy" <Jimmy.Mohsin@xxxxxx>
Sent by: cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

02/04/2008 06:16 PM

Please respond to
Cosmos Dev <cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"Cosmos Dev" <cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	"Doma, Srinivas Reddy" <SrinivasReddy.Doma@xxxxxx>
Subject	[cosmos-dev] i9 QA - Testing with multiple Data Brokers

Team, 
  
As you know, in COSMOS 1.0, till date, we have been proceeding with the
one Management Domain and one Broker model. 
  
Having multiple instances / types of Brokers is something we deferred to
a later release. 
  
That said, do you think QA should still test the situation where there
is ONE Management Domain and MULTIPLE instances of Data Brokers?  What
would the value be of such a test at this point? 
  
If you feel this is a good thing to do in i9, do we need to open an ER
to put the Domain and Broker in different bundles?
  
Thanks, 
Jimmy Mohsin 
Cell   +1-609-635-1703
  
  
Query from Srinivas Doma

1.      Single cosmos.war (domain and broker) bundle

-       Currently we have domain and broker under single bundle? Can we have them in different bundles, so that we

can configure one domain and multiple brokers (either on same machine or on different machines)
_______________________________________________
cosmos-dev mailing list
cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmos-dev
_______________________________________________
cosmos-dev mailing list
cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmos-dev