[LANG] Would CircuitBreaker better fit into [NET]?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[LANG] Would CircuitBreaker better fit into [NET]?

Benedikt Ritter-4
Hi,

CircuitBreaker is a pattern usually used when working with remote systems.
We have a CircuitBreaker implementation added to [LANG] in the concurrent
package. Now I'm wondering whether it would better fit into [NET].

Thoughts?

Benedikt
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Would CircuitBreaker better fit into [NET]?

sebb-2-2
On 12 June 2016 at 12:05, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> CircuitBreaker is a pattern usually used when working with remote systems.
> We have a CircuitBreaker implementation added to [LANG] in the concurrent
> package. Now I'm wondering whether it would better fit into [NET].
>
> Thoughts?

That does not seem a good fit.
NET is about providing basic interaces for network protocols.

Besides, it's not only useful for network operations implemented by NET.
For example, it could be useful with JDBC.

> Benedikt

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Would CircuitBreaker better fit into [NET]?

James Carman
In reply to this post by Benedikt Ritter-4
Is it only I/O related?

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:05 AM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> CircuitBreaker is a pattern usually used when working with remote systems.
> We have a CircuitBreaker implementation added to [LANG] in the concurrent
> package. Now I'm wondering whether it would better fit into [NET].
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Benedikt
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Would CircuitBreaker better fit into [NET]?

Benedikt Ritter-4
In reply to this post by sebb-2-2
sebb <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 12. Juni 2016 um 13:33 Uhr:

> On 12 June 2016 at 12:05, Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > CircuitBreaker is a pattern usually used when working with remote
> systems.
> > We have a CircuitBreaker implementation added to [LANG] in the concurrent
> > package. Now I'm wondering whether it would better fit into [NET].
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> That does not seem a good fit.
> NET is about providing basic interaces for network protocols.
>
> Besides, it's not only useful for network operations implemented by NET.
> For example, it could be useful with JDBC.
>

Okay! The concurrent package seems strange anyway.


>
> > Benedikt
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Would CircuitBreaker better fit into [NET]?

Pascal Schumacher
In reply to this post by James Carman
Yes, so I guess Commons IO would be the best fit.

Am 12.06.2016 um 13:40 schrieb James Carman:

> Is it only I/O related?
>
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:05 AM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> CircuitBreaker is a pattern usually used when working with remote systems.
>> We have a CircuitBreaker implementation added to [LANG] in the concurrent
>> package. Now I'm wondering whether it would better fit into [NET].
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Benedikt
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Would CircuitBreaker better fit into [NET]?

Benedikt Ritter-4
Pascal Schumacher <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 12. Juni 2016
um 13:50 Uhr:

> Yes, so I guess Commons IO would be the best fit.
>

Really? When talking about I/O I always think about file system
operations...


>
> Am 12.06.2016 um 13:40 schrieb James Carman:
> > Is it only I/O related?
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:05 AM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> CircuitBreaker is a pattern usually used when working with remote
> systems.
> >> We have a CircuitBreaker implementation added to [LANG] in the
> concurrent
> >> package. Now I'm wondering whether it would better fit into [NET].
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Benedikt
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Would CircuitBreaker better fit into [NET]?

James Carman
It has general stream/reader stuff too.

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:53 AM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Pascal Schumacher <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 12. Juni 2016
> um 13:50 Uhr:
>
> > Yes, so I guess Commons IO would be the best fit.
> >
>
> Really? When talking about I/O I always think about file system
> operations...
>
>
> >
> > Am 12.06.2016 um 13:40 schrieb James Carman:
> > > Is it only I/O related?
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:05 AM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> CircuitBreaker is a pattern usually used when working with remote
> > systems.
> > >> We have a CircuitBreaker implementation added to [LANG] in the
> > concurrent
> > >> package. Now I'm wondering whether it would better fit into [NET].
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >>
> > >> Benedikt
> > >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Would CircuitBreaker better fit into [NET]?

sebb-2-2
IO is a better fit than NET, but I'm not sure that it is better than LANG.

On 12 June 2016 at 13:03, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It has general stream/reader stuff too.
>
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:53 AM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Pascal Schumacher <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 12. Juni 2016
>> um 13:50 Uhr:
>>
>> > Yes, so I guess Commons IO would be the best fit.
>> >
>>
>> Really? When talking about I/O I always think about file system
>> operations...
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Am 12.06.2016 um 13:40 schrieb James Carman:
>> > > Is it only I/O related?
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:05 AM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi,
>> > >>
>> > >> CircuitBreaker is a pattern usually used when working with remote
>> > systems.
>> > >> We have a CircuitBreaker implementation added to [LANG] in the
>> > concurrent
>> > >> package. Now I'm wondering whether it would better fit into [NET].
>> > >>
>> > >> Thoughts?
>> > >>
>> > >> Benedikt
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >
>> >
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Would CircuitBreaker better fit into [NET]?

James Carman
Can it be used in non-I/O situations?

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:15 AM sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

> IO is a better fit than NET, but I'm not sure that it is better than LANG.
>
> On 12 June 2016 at 13:03, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > It has general stream/reader stuff too.
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:53 AM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Pascal Schumacher <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 12. Juni
> 2016
> >> um 13:50 Uhr:
> >>
> >> > Yes, so I guess Commons IO would be the best fit.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Really? When talking about I/O I always think about file system
> >> operations...
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Am 12.06.2016 um 13:40 schrieb James Carman:
> >> > > Is it only I/O related?
> >> > >
> >> > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:05 AM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Hi,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> CircuitBreaker is a pattern usually used when working with remote
> >> > systems.
> >> > >> We have a CircuitBreaker implementation added to [LANG] in the
> >> > concurrent
> >> > >> package. Now I'm wondering whether it would better fit into [NET].
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thoughts?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Benedikt
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Would CircuitBreaker better fit into [NET]?

Pascal Schumacher
I have only see it used to prevent cascading failures in distributed
systems (see http://martinfowler.com/bliki/CircuitBreaker.html for a
detailed explanation).

Hystrix and Apache Camel contain implementations of this pattern.

Am 12.06.2016 um 14:17 schrieb James Carman:

> Can it be used in non-I/O situations?
>
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:15 AM sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> IO is a better fit than NET, but I'm not sure that it is better than LANG.
>>
>> On 12 June 2016 at 13:03, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> It has general stream/reader stuff too.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:53 AM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>> Pascal Schumacher <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 12. Juni
>> 2016
>>>> um 13:50 Uhr:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, so I guess Commons IO would be the best fit.
>>>>>
>>>> Really? When talking about I/O I always think about file system
>>>> operations...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Am 12.06.2016 um 13:40 schrieb James Carman:
>>>>>> Is it only I/O related?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:05 AM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CircuitBreaker is a pattern usually used when working with remote
>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>> We have a CircuitBreaker implementation added to [LANG] in the
>>>>> concurrent
>>>>>>> package. Now I'm wondering whether it would better fit into [NET].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Benedikt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Would CircuitBreaker better fit into [NET]?

Oliver Heger-3
The current implementations that we have a pretty generic and just track
memory consumption or count events (e.g. failed service invocations).
They are not tighed to any specific use case or domain.

I think, [lang] is a good fit, but maybe the classes can be moved to a
separate package?

Oliver

Am 12.06.2016 um 14:37 schrieb Pascal Schumacher:

> I have only see it used to prevent cascading failures in distributed
> systems (see http://martinfowler.com/bliki/CircuitBreaker.html for a
> detailed explanation).
>
> Hystrix and Apache Camel contain implementations of this pattern.
>
> Am 12.06.2016 um 14:17 schrieb James Carman:
>> Can it be used in non-I/O situations?
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:15 AM sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> IO is a better fit than NET, but I'm not sure that it is better than
>>> LANG.
>>>
>>> On 12 June 2016 at 13:03, James Carman <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> It has general stream/reader stuff too.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:53 AM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Pascal Schumacher <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 12. Juni
>>> 2016
>>>>> um 13:50 Uhr:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, so I guess Commons IO would be the best fit.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Really? When talking about I/O I always think about file system
>>>>> operations...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 12.06.2016 um 13:40 schrieb James Carman:
>>>>>>> Is it only I/O related?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:05 AM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CircuitBreaker is a pattern usually used when working with remote
>>>>>> systems.
>>>>>>>> We have a CircuitBreaker implementation added to [LANG] in the
>>>>>> concurrent
>>>>>>>> package. Now I'm wondering whether it would better fit into [NET].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Benedikt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [LANG] Would CircuitBreaker better fit into [NET]?

Benedikt Ritter-4
Hi Oliver,

Oliver Heger <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 12. Juni 2016
um 16:52 Uhr:

> The current implementations that we have a pretty generic and just track
> memory consumption or count events (e.g. failed service invocations).
> They are not tighed to any specific use case or domain.
>
> I think, [lang] is a good fit, but maybe the classes can be moved to a
> separate package?
>

Yes, I remember us discussing where to put it. The concurrent package does
not feel like the right place for this class. But so do the others...


>
> Oliver
>
> Am 12.06.2016 um 14:37 schrieb Pascal Schumacher:
> > I have only see it used to prevent cascading failures in distributed
> > systems (see http://martinfowler.com/bliki/CircuitBreaker.html for a
> > detailed explanation).
> >
> > Hystrix and Apache Camel contain implementations of this pattern.
> >
> > Am 12.06.2016 um 14:17 schrieb James Carman:
> >> Can it be used in non-I/O situations?
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:15 AM sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> IO is a better fit than NET, but I'm not sure that it is better than
> >>> LANG.
> >>>
> >>> On 12 June 2016 at 13:03, James Carman <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> It has general stream/reader stuff too.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:53 AM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> Pascal Schumacher <[hidden email]> schrieb am So., 12.
> Juni
> >>> 2016
> >>>>> um 13:50 Uhr:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, so I guess Commons IO would be the best fit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Really? When talking about I/O I always think about file system
> >>>>> operations...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 12.06.2016 um 13:40 schrieb James Carman:
> >>>>>>> Is it only I/O related?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:05 AM Benedikt Ritter <
> [hidden email]
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> CircuitBreaker is a pattern usually used when working with remote
> >>>>>> systems.
> >>>>>>>> We have a CircuitBreaker implementation added to [LANG] in the
> >>>>>> concurrent
> >>>>>>>> package. Now I'm wondering whether it would better fit into [NET].
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Benedikt
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>