8:31 a.m.
When working on another project using Infinispan the code being used was a
bit interesting and I don't think our template configuration handling was
expecting it do so in such a way.
Essentially the code defined a template for a distributed cache as well as
some named caches. Then whenever a cache is retrieved it would pass the
given name and always the distributed cache template. Unfortunately with
the way templates work they essentially redefine a cache first so the
actual cache configuration was wiped out. In this example I was able to
get the code to change to using a default cache instead, which is the
behavior that is needed.
The issue though at hand is whether we should allow a user to call getCache
in such a way. My initial thought is to have it throw some sort of
configuration exception when this is invoked. But there are some possible
options.
1. Throw a configuration exception not allowing a user to use a template
with an already defined cache. This has a slight disconnect between
configuration and runtime, since if a user adds a new definition it could
cause runtime issues.
2. Log an error/warning message when this occurs. Is this enough though?
Still could have runtime issues that are possibly undetected.
3. Merge the configurations together applying the template first. This
would be akin to how default cache works currently, but you would get to
define your default template configuration at runtime. This sounded like
the best option to me, but the problem is what if someone calls getCache
using the same cache name but a different template. This could get hairy as
well.
Really thinking about the future, disconnecting the cache definition and
retrieval would be the best option, but we can't do that this late in the
game.
What do you guys think?
- Will
8:48 a.m.
While we could define the behaviour as in 3), I think that this is most
likely a configuration error. Therefore, I'd go with 1), and ideally
provide a link to FAQ/docs where you'd explain what exactly happened in
the exception message.
R.
On 02/27/2017 03:31 PM, William Burns wrote:
When working on another project using Infinispan the code being used
was a bit interesting and I don't think our template configuration
handling was expecting it do so in such a way.
Essentially the code defined a template for a distributed cache as
well as some named caches. Then whenever a cache is retrieved it would
pass the given name and always the distributed cache template.
Unfortunately with the way templates work they essentially redefine a
cache first so the actual cache configuration was wiped out. In this
example I was able to get the code to change to using a default cache
instead, which is the behavior that is needed.
The issue though at hand is whether we should allow a user to call
getCache in such a way. My initial thought is to have it throw some
sort of configuration exception when this is invoked. But there are
some possible options.
1. Throw a configuration exception not allowing a user to use a
template with an already defined cache. This has a slight disconnect
between configuration and runtime, since if a user adds a new
definition it could cause runtime issues.
2. Log an error/warning message when this occurs. Is this enough
though? Still could have runtime issues that are possibly undetected.
3. Merge the configurations together applying the template first.
This would be akin to how default cache works currently, but you would
get to define your default template configuration at runtime. This
sounded like the best option to me, but the problem is what if someone
calls getCache using the same cache name but a different template.
This could get hairy as well.
Really thinking about the future, disconnecting the cache definition
and retrieval would be the best option, but we can't do that this late
in the game.
What do you guys think?
- Will
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team
8:59 a.m.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:50 AM Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
While we could define the behaviour as in 3), I think that this is
most
Yeah rereading what I wrote again, it was definitely misleading. 3) was
what I wanted when I first found the issue.
likely a configuration error. Therefore, I'd go with 1), and
ideally
That is what I was leaning towards as well.
provide a link to FAQ/docs where you'd explain what exactly
happened in
the exception message.
Yeah I will make sure we have some stuff added to the template section of
the user guide.
R.
On 02/27/2017 03:31 PM, William Burns wrote:
> When working on another project using Infinispan the code being used
> was a bit interesting and I don't think our template configuration
> handling was expecting it do so in such a way.
>
> Essentially the code defined a template for a distributed cache as
> well as some named caches. Then whenever a cache is retrieved it would
> pass the given name and always the distributed cache template.
> Unfortunately with the way templates work they essentially redefine a
> cache first so the actual cache configuration was wiped out. In this
> example I was able to get the code to change to using a default cache
> instead, which is the behavior that is needed.
>
> The issue though at hand is whether we should allow a user to call
> getCache in such a way. My initial thought is to have it throw some
> sort of configuration exception when this is invoked. But there are
> some possible options.
>
> 1. Throw a configuration exception not allowing a user to use a
> template with an already defined cache. This has a slight disconnect
> between configuration and runtime, since if a user adds a new
> definition it could cause runtime issues.
> 2. Log an error/warning message when this occurs. Is this enough
> though? Still could have runtime issues that are possibly undetected.
> 3. Merge the configurations together applying the template first.
> This would be akin to how default cache works currently, but you would
> get to define your default template configuration at runtime. This
> sounded like the best option to me, but the problem is what if someone
> calls getCache using the same cache name but a different template.
> This could get hairy as well.
>
> Really thinking about the future, disconnecting the cache definition
> and retrieval would be the best option, but we can't do that this late
> in the game.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> - Will
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
8:52 a.m.
I would go for option 2.
We already started disconnecting the cache definition and retrieval,
at least `getCache(name)` doesn't define a new cache based on the
default configuration any more. So I don't think it would be too much,
even at this point, to deprecate all the overloads of `getCache` that
can define a new cache and advise users to use `defineConfiguration`
instead.
Cheers
Dan
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
When working on another project using Infinispan the code being used
was a
bit interesting and I don't think our template configuration handling was
expecting it do so in such a way.
Essentially the code defined a template for a distributed cache as well as
some named caches. Then whenever a cache is retrieved it would pass the
given name and always the distributed cache template. Unfortunately with
the way templates work they essentially redefine a cache first so the actual
cache configuration was wiped out. In this example I was able to get the
code to change to using a default cache instead, which is the behavior that
is needed.
The issue though at hand is whether we should allow a user to call getCache
in such a way. My initial thought is to have it throw some sort of
configuration exception when this is invoked. But there are some possible
options.
1. Throw a configuration exception not allowing a user to use a template
with an already defined cache. This has a slight disconnect between
configuration and runtime, since if a user adds a new definition it could
cause runtime issues.
2. Log an error/warning message when this occurs. Is this enough though?
Still could have runtime issues that are possibly undetected.
3. Merge the configurations together applying the template first. This
would be akin to how default cache works currently, but you would get to
define your default template configuration at runtime. This sounded like the
best option to me, but the problem is what if someone calls getCache using
the same cache name but a different template. This could get hairy as well.
Really thinking about the future, disconnecting the cache definition and
retrieval would be the best option, but we can't do that this late in the
game.
What do you guys think?
- Will
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
8:55 a.m.
I forgot to mention users can define their caches with
<distributed-cache configuration="template">...</distributed-cache>
if
they want inheritance. So we don't need a way to merge configurations
at this level.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I would go for option 2.
We already started disconnecting the cache definition and retrieval,
at least `getCache(name)` doesn't define a new cache based on the
default configuration any more. So I don't think it would be too much,
even at this point, to deprecate all the overloads of `getCache` that
can define a new cache and advise users to use `defineConfiguration`
instead.
Cheers
Dan
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> When working on another project using Infinispan the code being used was a
> bit interesting and I don't think our template configuration handling was
> expecting it do so in such a way.
>
> Essentially the code defined a template for a distributed cache as well as
> some named caches. Then whenever a cache is retrieved it would pass the
> given name and always the distributed cache template. Unfortunately with
> the way templates work they essentially redefine a cache first so the actual
> cache configuration was wiped out. In this example I was able to get the
> code to change to using a default cache instead, which is the behavior that
> is needed.
>
> The issue though at hand is whether we should allow a user to call getCache
> in such a way. My initial thought is to have it throw some sort of
> configuration exception when this is invoked. But there are some possible
> options.
>
> 1. Throw a configuration exception not allowing a user to use a template
> with an already defined cache. This has a slight disconnect between
> configuration and runtime, since if a user adds a new definition it could
> cause runtime issues.
> 2. Log an error/warning message when this occurs. Is this enough though?
> Still could have runtime issues that are possibly undetected.
> 3. Merge the configurations together applying the template first. This
> would be akin to how default cache works currently, but you would get to
> define your default template configuration at runtime. This sounded like the
> best option to me, but the problem is what if someone calls getCache using
> the same cache name but a different template. This could get hairy as well.
>
> Really thinking about the future, disconnecting the cache definition and
> retrieval would be the best option, but we can't do that this late in the
> game.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> - Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
9:09 a.m.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM Dan Berindei <dan.berindei(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I would go for option 2.
Do you think a WARN message will be enough? I am a bit weary about this
option myself.
We already started disconnecting the cache definition and retrieval,
at least `getCache(name)` doesn't define a new cache based on the
default configuration any more. So I don't think it would be too much,
even at this point, to deprecate all the overloads of `getCache` that
can define a new cache and advise users to use `defineConfiguration`
instead.
Hrmm I like the idea of deprecating the overloads :)
Cheers
Dan
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> When working on another project using Infinispan the code being used was
a
> bit interesting and I don't think our template configuration handling was
> expecting it do so in such a way.
>
> Essentially the code defined a template for a distributed cache as well
as
> some named caches. Then whenever a cache is retrieved it would pass the
> given name and always the distributed cache template. Unfortunately with
> the way templates work they essentially redefine a cache first so the
actual
> cache configuration was wiped out. In this example I was able to get the
> code to change to using a default cache instead, which is the behavior
that
> is needed.
>
> The issue though at hand is whether we should allow a user to call
getCache
> in such a way. My initial thought is to have it throw some sort of
> configuration exception when this is invoked. But there are some possible
> options.
>
> 1. Throw a configuration exception not allowing a user to use a template
> with an already defined cache. This has a slight disconnect between
> configuration and runtime, since if a user adds a new definition it could
> cause runtime issues.
> 2. Log an error/warning message when this occurs. Is this enough though?
> Still could have runtime issues that are possibly undetected.
> 3. Merge the configurations together applying the template first. This
> would be akin to how default cache works currently, but you would get to
> define your default template configuration at runtime. This sounded like
the
> best option to me, but the problem is what if someone calls getCache
using
> the same cache name but a different template. This could get hairy as
well.
>
> Really thinking about the future, disconnecting the cache definition and
> retrieval would be the best option, but we can't do that this late in the
> game.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> - Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
3:51 p.m.
So while I was trying to work on this, I have to admit I am even more torn
in regards to what to do. Looking at [1] it looks like the template
should only be applied if the cache configuration is not currently
defined. Unfortunately it doesn't work this way and always applies this
template to any existing configuration. So I am thinking an alternative is
to instead make it work as the documentation states, only using the
template if the cache is not currently defined. This seems more logical to
me at least.
With that change the getCache(String, String) could stay as long as it is
documented that a template is only applied if no cache configuration exists.
What do you guys think?
[1]
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/blob/master/core/src/main/java/o...
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:09 AM William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM Dan Berindei
<dan.berindei(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I would go for option 2.
Do you think a WARN message will be enough? I am a bit weary about this
option myself.
We already started disconnecting the cache definition and retrieval,
at least `getCache(name)` doesn't define a new cache based on the
default configuration any more. So I don't think it would be too much,
even at this point, to deprecate all the overloads of `getCache` that
can define a new cache and advise users to use `defineConfiguration`
instead.
Hrmm I like the idea of deprecating the overloads :)
Cheers
Dan
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> When working on another project using Infinispan the code being used was
a
> bit interesting and I don't think our template configuration handling was
> expecting it do so in such a way.
>
> Essentially the code defined a template for a distributed cache as well
as
> some named caches. Then whenever a cache is retrieved it would pass the
> given name and always the distributed cache template. Unfortunately with
> the way templates work they essentially redefine a cache first so the
actual
> cache configuration was wiped out. In this example I was able to get the
> code to change to using a default cache instead, which is the behavior
that
> is needed.
>
> The issue though at hand is whether we should allow a user to call
getCache
> in such a way. My initial thought is to have it throw some sort of
> configuration exception when this is invoked. But there are some possible
> options.
>
> 1. Throw a configuration exception not allowing a user to use a template
> with an already defined cache. This has a slight disconnect between
> configuration and runtime, since if a user adds a new definition it could
> cause runtime issues.
> 2. Log an error/warning message when this occurs. Is this enough though?
> Still could have runtime issues that are possibly undetected.
> 3. Merge the configurations together applying the template first. This
> would be akin to how default cache works currently, but you would get to
> define your default template configuration at runtime. This sounded like
the
> best option to me, but the problem is what if someone calls getCache
using
> the same cache name but a different template. This could get hairy as
well.
>
> Really thinking about the future, disconnecting the cache definition and
> retrieval would be the best option, but we can't do that this late in the
> game.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> - Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
2:18 a.m.
I still think that if the cache is already defined, defineConfiguration
should throw an exception. This javadoc was written 7 years ago [1],
maybe with a different intention.
Strange and complex combinations don't help. We have made a clear
separation between templates and cache configurations; you should not
use regular cache configuration as a template for programmatically
defined cache anymore, and if you really want to, there are means to
that (load, undefine, define).
Btw., the javadoc is out of date, too, since it mentions default cache
which has been removed recently.
R.
[1]
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/commit/73d99d37ebfb8af6b64df6a75...
On 02/28/2017 10:51 PM, William Burns wrote:
So while I was trying to work on this, I have to admit I am even more
torn in regards to what to do. Looking at [1] it looks like the
template should only be applied if the cache configuration is not
currently defined. Unfortunately it doesn't work this way and always
applies this template to any existing configuration. So I am thinking
an alternative is to instead make it work as the documentation states,
only using the template if the cache is not currently defined. This
seems more logical to me at least.
With that change the getCache(String, String) could stay as long as it
is documented that a template is only applied if no cache
configuration exists.
What do you guys think?
[1]
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/blob/master/core/src/main/java/o...
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:09 AM William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com
<mailto:mudokonman@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM Dan Berindei
<dan.berindei(a)gmail.com <mailto:dan.berindei@gmail.com>> wrote:
I would go for option 2.
Do you think a WARN message will be enough? I am a bit weary about
this option myself.
We already started disconnecting the cache definition and
retrieval,
at least `getCache(name)` doesn't define a new cache based on the
default configuration any more. So I don't think it would be
too much,
even at this point, to deprecate all the overloads of
`getCache` that
can define a new cache and advise users to use
`defineConfiguration`
instead.
Hrmm I like the idea of deprecating the overloads :)
Cheers
Dan
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, William Burns
<mudokonman(a)gmail.com <mailto:mudokonman@gmail.com>> wrote:
> When working on another project using Infinispan the code
being used was a
> bit interesting and I don't think our template configuration
handling was
> expecting it do so in such a way.
>
> Essentially the code defined a template for a distributed
cache as well as
> some named caches. Then whenever a cache is retrieved it
would pass the
> given name and always the distributed cache template.
Unfortunately with
> the way templates work they essentially redefine a cache
first so the actual
> cache configuration was wiped out. In this example I was
able to get the
> code to change to using a default cache instead, which is
the behavior that
> is needed.
>
> The issue though at hand is whether we should allow a user
to call getCache
> in such a way. My initial thought is to have it throw some
sort of
> configuration exception when this is invoked. But there are
some possible
> options.
>
> 1. Throw a configuration exception not allowing a user to
use a template
> with an already defined cache. This has a slight disconnect
between
> configuration and runtime, since if a user adds a new
definition it could
> cause runtime issues.
> 2. Log an error/warning message when this occurs. Is this
enough though?
> Still could have runtime issues that are possibly undetected.
> 3. Merge the configurations together applying the template
first. This
> would be akin to how default cache works currently, but you
would get to
> define your default template configuration at runtime. This
sounded like the
> best option to me, but the problem is what if someone calls
getCache using
> the same cache name but a different template. This could get
hairy as well.
>
> Really thinking about the future, disconnecting the cache
definition and
> retrieval would be the best option, but we can't do that
this late in the
> game.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> - Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team
6:01 a.m.
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I still think that if the cache is already defined,
defineConfiguration
should throw an exception. This javadoc was written 7 years ago [1],
maybe with a different intention.
Strange and complex combinations don't help. We have made a clear
separation between templates and cache configurations; you should not
use regular cache configuration as a template for programmatically
defined cache anymore, and if you really want to, there are means to
that (load, undefine, define).
Btw., the javadoc is out of date, too, since it mentions default cache
which has been removed recently.
That defineConfiguration javadoc is just weird, it says what the
Configuration returned by the method will be but it doesn't say what
the configuration associated with that cache name in the cache manager
will be...
I agree with throwing an exception in defineConfiguration(...) when
that cache is already defined. I would not throw an exception from
getCache(cache, configurationName) when the cache is already defined,
I'd just ignore the new configuration (as we already ignore it when
the cache is runninng) and maybe log a warning telling people to use
defineConfiguration(cacheName, configurationName, new
ConfigurationBuilder().build()) + getCache(cacheName).
Cheers
Dan
R.
[1]
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/commit/73d99d37ebfb8af6b64df6a75...
On 02/28/2017 10:51 PM, William Burns wrote:
> So while I was trying to work on this, I have to admit I am even more
> torn in regards to what to do. Looking at [1] it looks like the
> template should only be applied if the cache configuration is not
> currently defined. Unfortunately it doesn't work this way and always
> applies this template to any existing configuration. So I am thinking
> an alternative is to instead make it work as the documentation states,
> only using the template if the cache is not currently defined. This
> seems more logical to me at least.
>
> With that change the getCache(String, String) could stay as long as it
> is documented that a template is only applied if no cache
> configuration exists.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> [1]
>
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/blob/master/core/src/main/java/o...
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:09 AM William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:mudokonman@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM Dan Berindei
> <dan.berindei(a)gmail.com <mailto:dan.berindei@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I would go for option 2.
>
>
> Do you think a WARN message will be enough? I am a bit weary about
> this option myself.
>
>
> We already started disconnecting the cache definition and
> retrieval,
> at least `getCache(name)` doesn't define a new cache based on the
> default configuration any more. So I don't think it would be
> too much,
> even at this point, to deprecate all the overloads of
> `getCache` that
> can define a new cache and advise users to use
> `defineConfiguration`
> instead.
>
>
> Hrmm I like the idea of deprecating the overloads :)
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
> Dan
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, William Burns
> <mudokonman(a)gmail.com <mailto:mudokonman@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > When working on another project using Infinispan the code
> being used was a
> > bit interesting and I don't think our template configuration
> handling was
> > expecting it do so in such a way.
> >
> > Essentially the code defined a template for a distributed
> cache as well as
> > some named caches. Then whenever a cache is retrieved it
> would pass the
> > given name and always the distributed cache template.
> Unfortunately with
> > the way templates work they essentially redefine a cache
> first so the actual
> > cache configuration was wiped out. In this example I was
> able to get the
> > code to change to using a default cache instead, which is
> the behavior that
> > is needed.
> >
> > The issue though at hand is whether we should allow a user
> to call getCache
> > in such a way. My initial thought is to have it throw some
> sort of
> > configuration exception when this is invoked. But there are
> some possible
> > options.
> >
> > 1. Throw a configuration exception not allowing a user to
> use a template
> > with an already defined cache. This has a slight disconnect
> between
> > configuration and runtime, since if a user adds a new
> definition it could
> > cause runtime issues.
> > 2. Log an error/warning message when this occurs. Is this
> enough though?
> > Still could have runtime issues that are possibly undetected.
> > 3. Merge the configurations together applying the template
> first. This
> > would be akin to how default cache works currently, but you
> would get to
> > define your default template configuration at runtime. This
> sounded like the
> > best option to me, but the problem is what if someone calls
> getCache using
> > the same cache name but a different template. This could get
> hairy as well.
> >
> > Really thinking about the future, disconnecting the cache
> definition and
> > retrieval would be the best option, but we can't do that
> this late in the
> > game.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > - Will
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > infinispan-dev mailing list
> > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
8:26 a.m.
On 01/03/17 13:01, Dan Berindei wrote:
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Radim Vansa
<rvansa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> I still think that if the cache is already defined, defineConfiguration
> should throw an exception. This javadoc was written 7 years ago [1],
I agree with throwing an exception in defineConfiguration(...) when
that cache is already defined.
+1
getCache(cache, configurationName) when the cache is already
defined,
I'd just ignore the new configuration (as we already ignore it when
the cache is runninng) and maybe log a warning telling people to use
defineConfiguration(cacheName, configurationName, new
ConfigurationBuilder().build()) + getCache(cacheName).
+1
Tristan
> R.
>
> [1]
>
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/commit/73d99d37ebfb8af6b64df6a75...
>
> On 02/28/2017 10:51 PM, William Burns wrote:
>> So while I was trying to work on this, I have to admit I am even more
>> torn in regards to what to do. Looking at [1] it looks like the
>> template should only be applied if the cache configuration is not
>> currently defined. Unfortunately it doesn't work this way and always
>> applies this template to any existing configuration. So I am thinking
>> an alternative is to instead make it work as the documentation states,
>> only using the template if the cache is not currently defined. This
>> seems more logical to me at least.
>>
>> With that change the getCache(String, String) could stay as long as it
>> is documented that a template is only applied if no cache
>> configuration exists.
>>
>> What do you guys think?
>>
>> [1]
>>
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/blob/master/core/src/main/java/o...
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:09 AM William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com
>> <mailto:mudokonman@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM Dan Berindei
>> <dan.berindei(a)gmail.com <mailto:dan.berindei@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I would go for option 2.
>>
>>
>> Do you think a WARN message will be enough? I am a bit weary about
>> this option myself.
>>
>>
>> We already started disconnecting the cache definition and
>> retrieval,
>> at least `getCache(name)` doesn't define a new cache based on the
>> default configuration any more. So I don't think it would be
>> too much,
>> even at this point, to deprecate all the overloads of
>> `getCache` that
>> can define a new cache and advise users to use
>> `defineConfiguration`
>> instead.
>>
>>
>> Hrmm I like the idea of deprecating the overloads :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, William Burns
>> <mudokonman(a)gmail.com <mailto:mudokonman@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > When working on another project using Infinispan the code
>> being used was a
>> > bit interesting and I don't think our template configuration
>> handling was
>> > expecting it do so in such a way.
>> >
>> > Essentially the code defined a template for a distributed
>> cache as well as
>> > some named caches. Then whenever a cache is retrieved it
>> would pass the
>> > given name and always the distributed cache template.
>> Unfortunately with
>> > the way templates work they essentially redefine a cache
>> first so the actual
>> > cache configuration was wiped out. In this example I was
>> able to get the
>> > code to change to using a default cache instead, which is
>> the behavior that
>> > is needed.
>> >
>> > The issue though at hand is whether we should allow a user
>> to call getCache
>> > in such a way. My initial thought is to have it throw some
>> sort of
>> > configuration exception when this is invoked. But there are
>> some possible
>> > options.
>> >
>> > 1. Throw a configuration exception not allowing a user to
>> use a template
>> > with an already defined cache. This has a slight disconnect
>> between
>> > configuration and runtime, since if a user adds a new
>> definition it could
>> > cause runtime issues.
>> > 2. Log an error/warning message when this occurs. Is this
>> enough though?
>> > Still could have runtime issues that are possibly undetected.
>> > 3. Merge the configurations together applying the template
>> first. This
>> > would be akin to how default cache works currently, but you
>> would get to
>> > define your default template configuration at runtime. This
>> sounded like the
>> > best option to me, but the problem is what if someone calls
>> getCache using
>> > the same cache name but a different template. This could get
>> hairy as well.
>> >
>> > Really thinking about the future, disconnecting the cache
>> definition and
>> > retrieval would be the best option, but we can't do that
>> this late in the
>> > game.
>> >
>> > What do you guys think?
>> >
>> > - Will
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > infinispan-dev mailing list
>> > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
>
> --
> Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
> JBoss Performance Team
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Tristan Tarrant
Infinispan Lead
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
7:31 p.m.
Alright seems fine to me.
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017, 9:27 AM Tristan Tarrant <ttarrant(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 01/03/17 13:01, Dan Berindei wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> I still think that if the cache is already defined, defineConfiguration
>> should throw an exception. This javadoc was written 7 years ago [1],
> I agree with throwing an exception in defineConfiguration(...) when
> that cache is already defined.
+1
I get a lot of tests to change and remove now 😁
> getCache(cache, configurationName) when the cache is already
defined,
> I'd just ignore the new configuration (as we already ignore it when
> the cache is runninng) and maybe log a warning telling people to use
> defineConfiguration(cacheName, configurationName, new
> ConfigurationBuilder().build()) + getCache(cacheName).
+1
Tristan
>> R.
>>
>> [1]
>>
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/commit/73d99d37ebfb8af6b64df6a75...
>>
>> On 02/28/2017 10:51 PM, William Burns wrote:
>>> So while I was trying to work on this, I have to admit I am even more
>>> torn in regards to what to do. Looking at [1] it looks like the
>>> template should only be applied if the cache configuration is not
>>> currently defined. Unfortunately it doesn't work this way and always
>>> applies this template to any existing configuration. So I am thinking
>>> an alternative is to instead make it work as the documentation states,
>>> only using the template if the cache is not currently defined. This
>>> seems more logical to me at least.
>>>
>>> With that change the getCache(String, String) could stay as long as it
>>> is documented that a template is only applied if no cache
>>> configuration exists.
>>>
>>> What do you guys think?
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/blob/master/core/src/main/java/o...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:09 AM William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com
>>> <mailto:mudokonman@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM Dan Berindei
>>> <dan.berindei(a)gmail.com <mailto:dan.berindei@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>>>
>>> I would go for option 2.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think a WARN message will be enough? I am a bit weary about
>>> this option myself.
>>>
>>>
>>> We already started disconnecting the cache definition and
>>> retrieval,
>>> at least `getCache(name)` doesn't define a new cache based on
the
>>> default configuration any more. So I don't think it would be
>>> too much,
>>> even at this point, to deprecate all the overloads of
>>> `getCache` that
>>> can define a new cache and advise users to use
>>> `defineConfiguration`
>>> instead.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hrmm I like the idea of deprecating the overloads :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, William Burns
>>> <mudokonman(a)gmail.com <mailto:mudokonman@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>>> > When working on another project using Infinispan the code
>>> being used was a
>>> > bit interesting and I don't think our template
configuration
>>> handling was
>>> > expecting it do so in such a way.
>>> >
>>> > Essentially the code defined a template for a distributed
>>> cache as well as
>>> > some named caches. Then whenever a cache is retrieved it
>>> would pass the
>>> > given name and always the distributed cache template.
>>> Unfortunately with
>>> > the way templates work they essentially redefine a cache
>>> first so the actual
>>> > cache configuration was wiped out. In this example I was
>>> able to get the
>>> > code to change to using a default cache instead, which is
>>> the behavior that
>>> > is needed.
>>> >
>>> > The issue though at hand is whether we should allow a user
>>> to call getCache
>>> > in such a way. My initial thought is to have it throw some
>>> sort of
>>> > configuration exception when this is invoked. But there are
>>> some possible
>>> > options.
>>> >
>>> > 1. Throw a configuration exception not allowing a user to
>>> use a template
>>> > with an already defined cache. This has a slight disconnect
>>> between
>>> > configuration and runtime, since if a user adds a new
>>> definition it could
>>> > cause runtime issues.
>>> > 2. Log an error/warning message when this occurs. Is this
>>> enough though?
>>> > Still could have runtime issues that are possibly
undetected.
>>> > 3. Merge the configurations together applying the template
>>> first. This
>>> > would be akin to how default cache works currently, but you
>>> would get to
>>> > define your default template configuration at runtime. This
>>> sounded like the
>>> > best option to me, but the problem is what if someone calls
>>> getCache using
>>> > the same cache name but a different template. This could get
>>> hairy as well.
>>> >
>>> > Really thinking about the future, disconnecting the cache
>>> definition and
>>> > retrieval would be the best option, but we can't do that
>>> this late in the
>>> > game.
>>> >
>>> > What do you guys think?
>>> >
>>> > - Will
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>
>>
>> --
>> Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
>> JBoss Performance Team
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
--
Tristan Tarrant
Infinispan Lead
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
5:12 a.m.
Hi
2017-02-28 22:51 GMT+01:00 William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com>:
So while I was trying to work on this, I have to admit I am even more
torn
in regards to what to do. Looking at [1] it looks like the template
should only be applied if the cache configuration is not currently
defined. Unfortunately it doesn't work this way and always applies this
template to any existing configuration. So I am thinking an alternative is
to instead make it work as the documentation states, only using the
template if the cache is not currently defined. This seems more logical to
me at least.
I guess you started this conversation because of the issue you found in
vertx-infinispan :) Then yes, when I used this method the Javadoc made me
think that the template would be picked if no cache with the provided name
exists.
With that change the getCache(String, String) could stay as long as it is
documented that a template is only applied if no cache configuration exists.
What do you guys think?
Sounds better to me since it's what the doc suggests.
[1] https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/blob/master/core/
src/main/java/org/infinispan/manager/EmbeddedCacheManager.java#L84
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:09 AM William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:55 AM Dan Berindei <dan.berindei(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I would go for option 2.
>
>
> Do you think a WARN message will be enough? I am a bit weary about this
> option myself.
>
>
>
> We already started disconnecting the cache definition and retrieval,
> at least `getCache(name)` doesn't define a new cache based on the
> default configuration any more. So I don't think it would be too much,
> even at this point, to deprecate all the overloads of `getCache` that
> can define a new cache and advise users to use `defineConfiguration`
> instead.
>
>
> Hrmm I like the idea of deprecating the overloads :)
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
> Dan
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > When working on another project using Infinispan the code being used
> was a
> > bit interesting and I don't think our template configuration handling
> was
> > expecting it do so in such a way.
> >
> > Essentially the code defined a template for a distributed cache as well
> as
> > some named caches. Then whenever a cache is retrieved it would pass the
> > given name and always the distributed cache template. Unfortunately
> with
> > the way templates work they essentially redefine a cache first so the
> actual
> > cache configuration was wiped out. In this example I was able to get
> the
> > code to change to using a default cache instead, which is the behavior
> that
> > is needed.
> >
> > The issue though at hand is whether we should allow a user to call
> getCache
> > in such a way. My initial thought is to have it throw some sort of
> > configuration exception when this is invoked. But there are some
> possible
> > options.
> >
> > 1. Throw a configuration exception not allowing a user to use a template
> > with an already defined cache. This has a slight disconnect between
> > configuration and runtime, since if a user adds a new definition it
> could
> > cause runtime issues.
> > 2. Log an error/warning message when this occurs. Is this enough though?
> > Still could have runtime issues that are possibly undetected.
> > 3. Merge the configurations together applying the template first. This
> > would be akin to how default cache works currently, but you would get to
> > define your default template configuration at runtime. This sounded
> like the
> > best option to me, but the problem is what if someone calls getCache
> using
> > the same cache name but a different template. This could get hairy as
> well.
> >
> > Really thinking about the future, disconnecting the cache definition and
> > retrieval would be the best option, but we can't do that this late in
> the
> > game.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > - Will
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > infinispan-dev mailing list
> > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
2845
days inactive
2855
days old
infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
12 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Dan Berindei -
Galder Zamarreño -
Radim Vansa -
Thomas SEGISMONT -
Tristan Tarrant -
William Burns