Re: Configuration, take2

["Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh" <ilya@total-knowledge.com>]

Or use interface #2 or #3 from original email,
which actually force you to have some options present/accessible.

Alexey Parshin wrote:

>Not sure. We may request a list of options that must be defined as a
>property of the option group.. I don't really like it, but that would
>work
>
>
>On 4/26/05, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh <ilya@total-knowledge.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>So, you are sudgesting interface #1 to config?
>>i.e. 100% generic config functions? What kind of
>>enforcement mechanism on presense of config options
>>shall we have then?
>>
>>Alexey Parshin wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>In this case, we only have one copy of the config in memory, and the
>>>solution is simple - it should be hash-tree in memory, stored as XML
>>>when updated. We don't even need to store it on every update, only
>>>after some period of time, to ease the disk load. And access to such
>>>thing could be something like:
>>>
>>>  CConfig& servletConfig = configuration["servletClass"];
>>>  CParam& param = servletConfig["my_param"];
>>>
>>>  param = 12345.67;
>>>  /// ...
>>>  CString strParam = param;
>>>  int intParam = param;
>>>  double doubleParam = param;
>>>  /// ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 4/26/05, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh <ilya@total-knowledge.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Alexey Parshin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>The difference between SQL approach and config server approach -
>>>>>config server should be faster, have less footprint on the app,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Neither is nessesarily true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>AND
>>>>>may have XML underneath.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>And this way - we can just fold it back into app server itself ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>On 4/26/05, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh <ilya@total-knowledge.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, they will be shared between threads, if that's what you mean,
>>>>>>but sharing them between processes? We only have one process per server
>>>>>>anyways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>What about servlets - they aint going to be a process each?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Of course not. That's the whole point of application server -
>>>>multiple different pages are served by programs in single
>>>>memory space, so they can share live objects.
>>>>
>>>>i.e. session in application server is an object in memory,
>>>>that is never copied - instead its pointer just passed around.
>>>>
>>>>All we have is pool of threads, each serving *connections*
>>>>(not even thread per servlet).
>>>>        
>>>>


-- 
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh
Total Knowledge. CTO
http://www.total-knowledge.com