Eclipse Community Forums: EMF » [CDO] Configure Failover via cdo-server.xml?

Help

Home

Home » Modeling » EMF » [CDO] Configure Failover via cdo-server.xml?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

[CDO] Configure Failover via cdo-server.xml? [message #726938]

Mon, 19 September 2011 22:17

Steve Robenalt
Messages: 22
Registered: July 2009

Junior Member

I am in the process of setting up a Failover configuration for use with an existing CDO Server. I have the code based example of Failover configuration, but was wondering if it is possible to configure the elements necessary for Failover by updating cdo-server.xml?

The wiki page on CDO Server configuration does not include references for the elements (e.g. synchronizer) or attributes (e.g. repository type) that would be necessary for specifying such a configuration, so I'm not sure if the docs are old, or if the additional features were not added.

Of course, I can change my server to ignore cdo-server.xml and execute the code-based configuration easily enough, but it would be nice if I don't need to do so. Wink

Thanks,
Steve Robenalt

Report message to a moderator

Re: [CDO] Configure Failover via cdo-server.xml? [message #726981 is a reply to message #726938]

Tue, 20 September 2011 00:35

Eike Stepper
Messages: 5152
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Hi Steve,

In this regard the docs are unfortunately not incomplete. So far we haven't considered to create fail-over custers
declaratively.

Contributions would be welcome but be warned that the processing of the XML config file in RepositoryConfigurator.java
is currently not very customizable. Let me know if you need more infos.

Cheers
/Eike

----
http://www.esc-net.de
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper

Am 20.09.2011 04:17, schrieb Steve Robenalt:
> I am in the process of setting up a Failover configuration for use with an existing CDO Server. I have the code based
> example of Failover configuration, but was wondering if it is possible to configure the elements necessary for
> Failover by updating cdo-server.xml?
>
> The wiki page on CDO Server configuration does not include references for the elements (e.g. synchronizer) or
> attributes (e.g. repository type) that would be necessary for specifying such a configuration, so I'm not sure if the
> docs are old, or if the additional features were not added.
>
> Of course, I can change my server to ignore cdo-server.xml and execute the code-based configuration easily enough, but
> it would be nice if I don't need to do so. ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Robenalt
>

Report message to a moderator

Re: [CDO] Configure Failover via cdo-server.xml? [message #727223 is a reply to message #726981]

Tue, 20 September 2011 12:31

Steve Robenalt
Messages: 22
Registered: July 2009

Junior Member

Thanks Eike.

I'm thinking about creating an EMF model for configuration. I noticed there is an FAQ on the topic. Have you given any thought to how you would want such a configuration model to look? I'd be happy to prototype something, and to contribute it if you'd find it useful.

Steve

Report message to a moderator

Re: [CDO] Configure Failover via cdo-server.xml? [message #727255 is a reply to message #727223]

Tue, 20 September 2011 13:36

Eike Stepper
Messages: 5152
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Hi Steve,

The definition model(s) you've mentioned are still being shipped, although I doubt that they've been used a lot. But it
would be great if you could look if you find the design usable. If so, we should bring them up to date rather then
reinvent the wheel ;-)

Cheers
/Eike

----
http://www.esc-net.de
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper

Am 20.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Steve Robenalt:
> Thanks Eike.
>
> I'm thinking about creating an EMF model for configuration. I noticed there is an FAQ on the topic. Have you given any
> thought to how you would want such a configuration model to look? I'd be happy to prototype something, and to
> contribute it if you'd find it useful.
>
> Steve
>

Report message to a moderator

Re: [CDO] Configure Failover via cdo-server.xml? [message #727265 is a reply to message #727255]

Tue, 20 September 2011 14:44

Steve Robenalt
Messages: 22
Registered: July 2009

Junior Member

Hi Eike,

I've been looking at the definition models, which seem to have most of what would be needed, though I don't see an o.e.e.cdo.server.defs model with (for example) FailoverParticipantDef or RepositorySynchronizerDef in it, so that presumably needs to be added (or am I just not seeing it?).

I agree that it's best not to reinvent the wheel on something like this. My main concern with the defs model was simply that the configuration would end up being a fairly literal reflection of the underlying CDO infrastructure when perhaps something simpler would suffice. I'll experiment with it a bit to determine if my concerns are legitimate or not. If they are, I still wouldn't propose changing the defs model, but perhaps a simplified configuration model with a Model-To-Model transform into the underlying defs model would be appropriate.

Thanks,
Steve

Report message to a moderator

(no subject) [message #727354 is a reply to message #727265]

Tue, 20 September 2011 23:25

Eike Stepper
Messages: 5152
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Am 20.09.2011 20:44, schrieb Steve Robenalt:
> Hi Eike,
>
> I've been looking at the definition models, which seem to have most of what would be needed, though I don't see an
> o.e.e.cdo.server.defs model with (for example) FailoverParticipantDef or RepositorySynchronizerDef in it, so that
> presumably needs to be added (or am I just not seeing it?).
I'm sure that synchronizable repositories have been developed way after André has stopped working on the definition
models. So yes, all kinds of new constructs wold have to be added, such as the different new repository types, the repo
synchronizer, session connfiguration factories, etc.

>
> I agree that it's best not to reinvent the wheel on something like this. My main concern with the defs model was
> simply that the configuration would end up being a fairly literal reflection of the underlying CDO infrastructure
That was the intend.

> when perhaps something simpler would suffice.
I doubt it. We'd likely end up in the same one way route as with RepositoryConfigurator.

> I'll experiment with it a bit to determine if my concerns are legitimate or not. If they are, I still wouldn't propose
> changing the defs model, but perhaps a simplified configuration model with a Model-To-Model transform into the
> underlying defs model would be appropriate.
Possible that you in particular could go with something simpler, but in general there will hardly be a consensus about
how simple simple may be or not.

Cheers
/Eike

----
http://www.esc-net.de
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper

Report message to a moderator

Re: (no subject) [message #727770 is a reply to message #727354]

Wed, 21 September 2011 20:15

Steve Robenalt
Messages: 22
Registered: July 2009

Junior Member

Hi Eike,

I've spent the day looking at extending the defs model to support server configuration. So far, it looks like 3 new defs models are needed as follows:

org.eclipse.emf.cdo.server.defs
org.eclipse.emf.cdo.server.db.defs
org.eclipse.net4j.db.defs

I've created initial versions of these and will create a new bugzilla to which I will attach them so you and the rest of the committers can comment as appropriate and the contribution can be tracked. Once I've created the bugzilla, I'll post the number here to complete the forum conversation.

Thanks,
Steve

Report message to a moderator

Re: (no subject) [message #727832 is a reply to message #727770]

Wed, 21 September 2011 23:40

Eike Stepper
Messages: 5152
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Am 22.09.2011 02:15, schrieb Steve Robenalt:
> Hi Eike,
>
> I've spent the day looking at extending the defs model to support server configuration. So far, it looks like 3 new
> defs models are needed as follows:
>
> org.eclipse.emf.cdo.server.defs
> org.eclipse.emf.cdo.server.db.defs
> org.eclipse.net4j.db.defs
I was not aware anymore that so far only the common and client concepts had been "def'ed". But you're right, these three
seem reasonable, given that we manage to deal with all concrete Net4j DBAdapters in one plugin (optional dependencies?).

>
> I've created initial versions of these and will create a new bugzilla to which I will attach them so you and the rest
> of the committers can comment as appropriate and the contribution can be tracked. Once I've created the bugzilla, I'll
> post the number here to complete the forum conversation.
Great. I'm looking forward to seeing it all in action. A GMF editor for the defniitions would be neat :P

Cheers
/Eike

----
http://www.esc-net.de
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper

Report message to a moderator

Re: (no subject) [message #727849 is a reply to message #727832]

Thu, 22 September 2011 00:42

Steve Robenalt
Messages: 22
Registered: July 2009

Junior Member

It turns out that there was actually a 4th model needed, so I've added that one to the newly created bug as well.

The bug number is 358506 and I will post further comments there.

And yes, a GMF editor would be a nice addition as well. I'm a bit rusty on GMF, though, so I'll focus on finishing the model first. Wink

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	[CDO] References across two EMF models
Next Topic:	Noob question: how to save .mymodel file after using the generated code?

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

]

Current Time: Mon May 20 15:29:43 EDT 2013