-------- Original Message
--------
Subject: Re: [cosmos-dev] i9 QA - Testing with multiple Data Brokers
From: Mark D Weitzel <weitzelm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, February 06, 2008 8:33 am
To: Cosmos Dev <cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx, Cosmos Dev
<cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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 sa id 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.
R egards,
_________________________
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 f eel 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<
BR>
_______________________________________________
cosmos-dev mailing list
cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmos-dev
