[infinispan-dev] Data Container configuration changes

[William Burns]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:56 AM Pedro Ruivo <pedro at infinispan.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 27-10-2016 14:20, William Burns wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 4:56 AM Pedro Ruivo <pedro at infinispan.org
> > <mailto:pedro at infinispan.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 26-10-2016 23:06, William Burns wrote:
> >     > I have been working on adding in off heap support for a given
> >     cache.  I
> >     > wanted to check in and let you all know what I was thinking for the
> >     > configuration and changes that would come about with it.
> >     >
> >     > TLDR;
> >     > New config under data container to enable off heap, StoreAsBinary
> >     > removed, Equivalence removed
> >     >
> >     > First I was planning on adding new sub elements of data container.
> >     > These would be instance, binary and off-heap.  Only of the three
> could
> >     > be picked as they are mutually exclusive.  Instance is as we
> >     operate now
> >     > where we store the instance of the object passed to us.  Binary is
> >     > essentially what we have now that is called storeAsBinary with
> >     both keys
> >     > and values converted.  Lastly off-heap would store the entry as a
> >     byte[]
> >     > store completely in native memory.
> >
> >     I prefer 'object' instead of 'instance'.
> >
> >
> > Sounds fine with me.
> >
> >
> >
> >     Are you also planning to remove the expiration and/or eviction
> >     configuration elements and set them in the data-container sub
> elements?
> >
> >
> > I wasn't planning on touching those.  But now that you mention it,
> > eviction only makes sense in the data container, where as expiration is
> > container and cache store.  And taking this further storeAsBinary is
> > both as well, only off-heap is container only.  I wonder if instead we
> > should have a separate storage element at the same level as
> > data-container.  I can see it either way.
>
> Let me know if this makes sense:
>
> <expiration> //no changes here
> <memory evictionStrategy=... evictionPolicy=...>
>
> //one of the following
>      <on-heap max-entries=.../>
>      <on-heap-binary max-size=.../>
>      <off-heap ...max-size? and off-heap config.../>
>
> </memory>
> <persistence> //no changes here
>
> wdyt?
>

Seems fine to me.  And to be honest I forgot to mention this but
EvictionStrategy and EvictionPolicy are completely redundant now.  Policy
has been for a while as we always used the same thread and Strategy is only
Caffeine and for off heap I was thinking of a simple LRU.

This means that the data container element would be removed in favor of
"memory"?  The reason being is that equivalence will be gone and afaik we
never really supported a custom data container (eviction wouldn't work with
it and neither would off heap).  In that case why not just keep using data
container element?


> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     >
> >     > Example:
> >     >
> >     >  <data-container>
> >     >    <off-heap/>
> >     >   </data-container>
> >     >
> >     > The reason it is a subelement instead of a property is because
> >     off-heap
> >     > will most likely require some additional configuration to tell how
> >     many
> >     > entries to store in the a bucket (think non resizing HashMap).
> >     >
> >     > With these changes storeAsBinary becomes redundant, so I was
> >     planning on
> >     > removing this configuration completely.  I would rather remove
> since
> >     > this is 9.0 and not deprecate.  As far as I know nobody really
> used it
> >     > before.
> >     >
> >     > Also another side effect is I was removing all of the Equivalence
> >     > classes.  I am not sure if I can plainly remove them since they
> have
> >     > lived in commons for quite a while, but it would be best if I
> could,
> >     > although I am fine deprecating.  In its place the instance setting
> for
> >     > data-container will always wrap byte[] to satisfy equals and
> hashCode
> >     > methods.
> >     >
> >     > Any feedback would be appreciated.
> >     >
> >     > Thanks,
> >     >  - Will
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > infinispan-dev mailing list
> >     > infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> >     > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
> >     >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     infinispan-dev mailing list
> >     infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> >     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > infinispan-dev mailing list
> > infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/infinispan-dev/attachments/20161027/d0c73bd2/attachment-0001.html