On 03/24/2015 02:22 PM, William Burns wrote:
I am nearing completion of the new multi get command [1], allowing
for
more efficient retrieval of multiple keys at the same time. Thanks
again to Radim for a lot of the initial work.
In doing so though I want to make sure I get feedback on how we want
the API to actually look, since this is much more difficult to change
down the line.
There are a few things in particular I wanted to discuss.
1. The actual name of the method. The main suggestions I have seen
are getAll or getMany. I do like the naming of the former, however it
seems a bit misleading (remember API is getAll(Set) since we are
really getting a subset. So I am thinking the possibilities at this
point are getAllOf, getAllFor or getMany. I am leaning maybe towards
the last one (getMany). I am open to any suggestions though.
Actually Tristan suggested the name multiGet() - I would prefer this one
in the end, and adding multiPut() that would just do putAll (to have the
API symmetric) and deprecate the putAll() method. multiRemove and others
can follow later, and the naming is straightforward.
I would object against getAll() since this sounds like retrieving all
entries from the cache, not just the specified keys.
2. What should the return value be for this method. Currently this
returns a Map<K, V> which makes sense when we retain these values in
the local transactional context and is pretty nice and clean for end
users.
The other idea is to use a streaming API possibly returning an
Iterable<CacheEntry<K, V>>. The streaming return value doesn't seem
as intuitive to me, but opens us up for more efficient usage
especially when there may be a lot of keys passed in (also results can
be processed concurrently while retrieval is still occurring).
I would lean towards returning the Map<K, V> value, however the next
point could change that.
I think that Iterable<CacheEntry<K, V>> is too confusing for the end
user, I would stick to the Map. If you want lazy loading, the Map (and
it's EntrySet) could be made lazy by a flag.
3. Where this method should live. Right now this method is on the
BasicCache interface which is a parent of both Cache (embedded) and
RemoteCache (remote). Unfortunately for remote clients to be as
efficient as possible we really need a Streaming API so that we don't
have multiple copies of data in memory at multiple places at the same
time. For that reason I suggest we use the streaminig API for both or
have a different API for remote vs embedded.
Radim
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
JBoss Performance Team