we have a J2EE app on which we’re still working. It runs on Oracle DB. and the business tier is coded with EJB 2.0 with a rich client interface.
now, the application is going to be deployed on multiple sites. and each site will be creating new items (new contracts, etc.).
what we want to realize is to duplicate all new items added to a central location DB using same DB schema as local ones.
what do you think is the most effective way to accomplish this ?
I’ve thought about serializing all new items created and sending them to the remote site for integration through Java Message Service queue. is that approach good ?
and there’s also going to be some changes to be replicated back to the satellites.
I would say that a synchronous relationship with the centre introduces coupling that you don’t want. Hence your asynch idea seems pretty good to me. You presumably have some location-dependent identifier in the records so that new contracts creations in the different locations will not clash and you accept some latency in the replication to the centre.
So the simple case is that just use JMS messages from each location to the centre.
The nice thing about this appraoch is that the satelites don’t even need to know about the database structure in the centre, it can be designed completely idepedently.
Things get more interesting if you also need to replicate changes back from the centre to the satelites. The big question is whether we might get conflicts between changes at the centre and changes at the satelite.
Simple case: Any data item has one “home”. For example the originating satelite is the place where changes are made. Or after creation the centre is the only place ti make changes. In which case we can treat the centre as the “Hub”, it can propogate changes out to the satelites. Simple JMS will do just fine for that.
Slightly harder case: Changes can be made anywhere, but only in one place at a time. Hence we can introduce somne kind if locking scheme. I would tend to have the Centre as the owner and use synchrnous web services to lock and update the data. Now we are coupled, but that necessary if we are to have a definitive owner.
Quite complex case: Anyone can changes anything anywhere without locking. It’s kind of an “Act First, Apologise Later” approach. We take the optimistic approach that changes won’t clash. We can send the changes for approval to the centre and the centre can either use an optimistic locking or merge non-conflicting changes approach. I would tend to do this by queueing changes a the originator, but actually processing them by synchronous calls. So decoupling the specification of change from the availability of the centre. Some more sophisticated Databases have diff/merge capabilities that may help with this.
Big questions are the extent to which you want to be coupled to the availability of the centre and the likelihood of conflicting changes. Quite often cunning application design can greatly reduce the likelihood of conflict.