Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Current »

 

Estimated: 11:00 to 12:00 CET.

Performed:  to  CET

Agenda

 

Location

  • AdobeConnect:

http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/openncp/
Room Passcode:  markus.kalliola or michele.foucart
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have never attended an Adobe Connect meeting before:
Test your connection: http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm
Get a quick overview: http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html
Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat and Adobe Connect are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S

Joao Cunha

Kostas Karkaletsis

Massimiliano Masi

Marcello Melgara

YacoubouY

michele.foucart

Support documents

https://openncp.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?spaceKey=ncp&title=Cache+implementation+through+ConfigurationManager+refactoring


Meeting Notes

Introduction, context

S explains the solution proposed

Advantages, impacts...

Massimiliano Masi:

  • change proposal is supposed to be used for change of specs, based on objective results. So challenging objective
     
  • From a technical point of view, the best solution
  • Results of EC tests not share on Confluence, missing measures

Is this a change? Distinction between software bugs, change of specs, or improvement of something existing

Marcello Melgara: any change must converge to something that is stable and useful for MS. For every change it must reach an agreement, if agreement not reach we need to escalate.

Massimiliano Masi: question of complexity:

  • product useful for MS
  • We don't know yet the size (how many messages, patients, documents...), so we should do the best
    • Reality for CEF:
      • 21 countries applied
      • 1 million EU citizens...
    • Results? We don't know because not a comparison of the same thing
    • Impact? 1/2 day effort for the CP.
      • Not sure, because keeping the DB and...more complex than the other solutions
      • S: 3 or 4 calls to the db, simple hashmap.
      • Get properties to the conf manager is called every time, should be one of the top priority
        • Keep the value in memory as long as it changes
        • With DB approach (micro cache), use DB every time the cache is expired => DH hit more often than we think
      • The solutions should be compared
    • The idea of what we want to use  // Redis
    • More complex + does not help SMP/SML: 
    • Process: change end point once a year...
    • Micro caching: good but
      • eviction time 10 sec
    • Publish subscriber (e.g. Redis): 1 SMP call against 2 uses cases, 5 lines of code
  • Each cache in hibernate or also microcache? Idea was to use both (IH? Hibernate? cache + micro cache) => not clear in the proposal
    • context of the properties which won't change som much, so even if refresh once start day, 1 call to the database? => to be completed
    • Tests microcache:


  • No labels