Changes between Version 51 and Version 52 of releases/Bella-2.2

Show
Ignore:
Timestamp:
11/22/10 18:09:58 (9 years ago)
Author:
ibaldin (IP: 152.54.6.136)
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • releases/Bella-2.2

    v51 v52  
    3434   * There is a concept of 'deferral'. If you don't have enough resources, you can send back partial resources, which is why this makes sense. We may need to add a property on the control for the resource pool, a new property 'non-deferrable' may need to be added. There is a binary predicate that determines whether a redeem is possible (yes redeem/no redeem/no redeem and release). The children reservation get tickets and they need to be cleaned up if a parent fails on redeem. This needs to be a transaction. Predecessor reservations need to be closed, however we may need to wait until they are done redeeming, as closing in redeeming state is difficult. 
    3535 * Can/Should we get rid of RENCI-net UNC-net authorities? So we can have a single authority controlling EX3200? 
    36  * How can we pass port configuration from the switches into the log from failure of operations? 
    37    * if you specify a task property as 'shirako.save.XXXX' (Config class) will be passed back (with stripped 'shirako.save') and the property will be attached to the unit for which the handler was executed (shirako.save.blah -> blah) however failed units aren't sent back to e.g. SM. Logging it in the handler is possible. Logging is probably easiest. Also possible to attach it to the reservation and pass it as a property. There is also a notice mechanism that can be used to pass it back to the reservation.  
    38  * Do we still an interactor deadlock problem? 
    39     * Yes. Needs fixing. Every inter-actor call holds big lock. Across multiple containers it is possible for call and response to be in different threads, which may cause deadlock. The solution is when calls are made across actors, they are not done while holding the big lock. The issue is handling exceptions. 
     36 
    4037 * Do we need to re-enable certificate validation? 
    4138    * Probably yes. The issue may be between different versions of Java. It has to do with serialization of certificates into byte arrays. The solution is likely to use the hash of the certificate instead of a byte array.