Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
AW: [smila-dev] RE: FYI :: new feature :: Message Resequencer

Hi,

> > I have the impression, that you've missed my point:
> > You are constantly debating the approach to solve the problem,
> 
> I'm suggesting a solution that meets (all) the requirements. And IMOH
I'm arguing
> how it does that and how others do or don't.
Don't you see? You talk again about the solution ;-)

Seriously:
The most important requirement is the scalability.
Does your solution scale?
What I mean with scaling is, can we have hundreds and thousands of queue
consumers that operate _fully_ independent (not to wait each other just
to keep the order of operations)?

To be honest, I do not see how you solution can fulfill this
requirement.

My point is (as stated many times already):
Do not try to solve this problem if we know that we can prevent it.
Let's work on problem prevention!

> As I wrote in my last mail: my setout is to look for a solution that
meets _all_
> requirements _independent_ of their likely hood to happen.
Like Daniel and I earlier stated: Your solution does not scale. The most
important requirement (which is scalability) is not met.


> > Therefore I would define the _real_ problem as: "How to make sure
that
> > the execution order of operations on _one_ particular record _does
not_
> > matter."
> > Can we agree on this?
> 
> If that is possible, to transform the problem into that: great! Let's
hear it.
I'm confident that this is possible. The way to do this is by buffering
document operations.
Can we discuss buffering now?

Cheers
Igor


Back to the top