Applying to a framework

[Shigemoto FUJIKURA]

hi terracotta users,

i have a very basic but important question. your opinions will help me.

im thinking to apply terracotta to a framework which is implemented
without thinking terracotta. so some of state object (which should be
shared with terracotta) has a field which isnt marked transient and some
of method which touches shared object doesnt have synchronize statement.

therefore, i should write big configuration file for that terracotta
works correctly.

in this case, i should think through future changes. framework upgrading
and developing plugins (which add a new transport protocol support or
something like that) will affect terracotta work because the
configuration file really depends on an internal implementation of that
framework.

is terracotta still good solution in such a situation?


Regards,
--
Shigemoto FUJIKURA
fujikura@...
_______________________________________________
tc-users mailing list
tc-users@...
http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-users

[Alex Miller-8]

Hi,

Yes, Terracotta is still a good solution in this case.  We maintain Terracotta integration modules (TIMs) for a number of open source frameworks.  

As you state, some work needs to be done to track the framework as it releases new versions.  In general, this is a much smaller effort than the initial integration work.  

Most importantly it's probably a much smaller effort than writing a distributed version of the framework yourself.  

If you'd like to host your integration on our open source forge (http://forge.terracotta.org), let us know.  You can also ask questions here or on the forums if you have questions.

Alex Miller




----- Original Message -----
From: "Shigemoto FUJIKURA" <fujikura@...>
To: tc-users@...
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2008 4:04:39 PM (GMT-0600) America/Chicago
Subject: [tc-users] Applying to a framework

hi terracotta users,

i have a very basic but important question. your opinions will help me.

im thinking to apply terracotta to a framework which is implemented
without thinking terracotta. so some of state object (which should be
shared with terracotta) has a field which isnt marked transient and some
of method which touches shared object doesnt have synchronize statement.

therefore, i should write big configuration file for that terracotta
works correctly.

in this case, i should think through future changes. framework upgrading
and developing plugins (which add a new transport protocol support or
something like that) will affect terracotta work because the
configuration file really depends on an internal implementation of that
framework.

is terracotta still good solution in such a situation?


Regards,
--
Shigemoto FUJIKURA
fujikura@...
_______________________________________________
tc-users mailing list
tc-users@...
http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-users

_______________________________________________
tc-users mailing list
tc-users@...
http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-users