On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Emmanuel Bernard
<emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
> On 22 sept. 2014, at 19:23, William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Emmanuel Bernard
> <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19 Sep 2014, at 17:09, William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Comments regarding embedded usage are inline. I am not quite sure on
>>> the hot rod client ones.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Emmanuel Bernard
>>> <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That requires us to be able to provide the old and new value to the
KeyValueFilter and the Converter interface as well as the type of event (creation, update,
deletion).
>>>
>>> I agree the oldValue is required for most efficient usage. From the
>>> oldValue though it seems you can infer what operation it is. Create
>>> has null oldValue and delete has null newValue I would think.
>>
>> well except when I do cache.put(key, null) but that might not matter.
>
> We don't allow a null value to be passed to put.
>
>> The other use case is the includeInitialState where the old value would be either
null or the same as the new one? Could a user detect that state based on old == new?
>
> It would have prevValue as null in this case.
>
>> At any rate the programming model becomes quite awkward and rely on strong
understanding, I’d prefer to stick an enum showing the transition explicitly to make
things easier.
>
> I am not sold on this as it seems pretty trivial to decipher which
> operation is which and the information would be present on the
> javadocs as well.
I very strongly disagree. Cf the other thread with Radim 's comment on topology
error.
And think about *future* evolutions. The enum would make that much safer. In the bin enum
world you would have to introduce a new YetAnotherKeyValueFilter interface :)
>>>>
>>>> ## includeCurrentState and very narrow filtering
>>>>
>>>> The existing approach is fine (send a create event notif for all existing
keys and queue changes in the mean time) as long as the listener plans to consume most of
these events.
>>>> But in case of a big data grid, with a lot of passivated entries, the
cost would become non negligible.
>>>
>>> The filter and converter are applied while doing the current state so
>>> it should be performant in that case.
>>
>> I don’t understand, the code still has to look all key/value pairs of a given
node (at least the primary ones) and send them through the KVF / Converter logic. So you
need to unmarshal all of them as well as load from cachestore the passivated ones.
Correct? That’s the cost I am describing here.
>
> Sorry I didn't realize you were referring to an indexed query. Yes
> that could improve performance of the initial retrieval. I am not as
> familiar with indexed query, but I don't know if it lends itself well
> to the individual filtering that is done as each event is fired. I
> think this needs to be discussed/investigated further.
Ok. How do we go about this ? JIRA ? Different email thread?
I would suggest both. We can probably also get some time to discuss
this at the F2F in a few months, unless you think this is more
critical? I am just thinking this feature might be a bit too late to
get into 7.0 at this point.
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev