It could be but the original intention is to require all members to have
the FailureRecoveryActionFactory. Is this check for registration of this
FRAF required since that would involve additional messaging overhead to
keep all members in sync about this information?
Bongjae Chang wrote:
> Hi.
> I have a problem about failure recovery.
> When a member is failed, other memberwho has
> FailureRecoveryActionFactorycan recover the failure member.
> But I founda limitation in order to recovery the failure member correctly.
> The restriction is that all membersmust have FailureRecoveryActionFactory.
> Assume that "A", "B", "C" and "D"are members in same group.
> "A" is the failure member and both "B" and "C" have
> FailureRecoveryFactory and "D" doesn't have FailureRecoveryFactory.
> When "A" is failed,"B" and "C" can only recover "A".
> But if "D" is selected for recoverer in "B" and "C"'s
> recovery-selection-algorithm, anyone can't recover "A".
> So I think that only members who have FailureRecoveryActionFactory are
> qualified forrecoverer.
> In other words, I think that "D" shouldbe excluded in recover's candidate.
> Unfortunately, current algorithm qualifiesall members as recoverer if
> they are alive andCORE members.
> Could thiscase be supported?
> --
> Bongjae Chang