Re: [infinispan-dev] Moving functional API to core
On 06/12/2017 04:52 PM, William Burns wrote:
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 12:56 AM Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com
<mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>> wrote:
Hi guys,
when the functional API has been outline, the interfaces were put into
infinispan-commons to make it possible to share these between remote
clients and embedded use case. However, it seems that reusing this
as-is
impossible or at least impractical as we cannot send the lambdas in a
language neutral way. In the future, we may implement a way to share
functions between client and a server but that will most likely result
in an interface accepting something else than Function<ReadWriteEntry,
R>. Also, it's rather weird to have two EntryVersion interfaces.
Therefore I suggest moving org.infinispan.commons.api.functional to
infinispan-core, package org.infinispan.api.functional
You might say that the server-side code would use the interfaces, but
once it's running on server, it should depend on core (or core-api) -
commons is what is shared with the client, and if the client will in
future register a new function on the server, the user code should
depend on core-api as well (client-hotrod itself does not have to).
If you wonder what led me to this is that I've tried to add
SerializableFunction overloads to the FunctionalMap and found out that
SerializableFunction et all are only in infinispan-core (for good).
We could move these into commons in a major version if we need to as
well. I never thought about using them in the client code as we never
planned on supporting serialized lambdas there, but if it makes other
things easier I am for it.
Also there is nothing stopping us from having these in commons right
now, there is nothing special about the interfaces, they can just be
copied over.
-1 These can't be simply copied, because two modules cannot share a
package name (org.infinispan.util), therefore we would have to move the
SerializableFunction to org.infinispan.commons.util.function. But as you
say; we can't/don't want to support lambdas in any remote client
operations and therefore these would be superfluous in commons.
We have to think about a pattern for the building-blocks (counters,
locks, multimaps...): in embedded case we want to expose API using
lambdas, in remote client this should be named filter, script or Ickle
query. Obvious solution is having BaseFeature -> EmbeddedFeature,
RemoteFeature that would expose the functional operations symmetrically
but with different API, but it seems to me a bit inelegant.
Note that embedded/remote building blocks will have different
properties/behaviour anyway - e.g. for embedded it could be useful to
execute an action once the 'owning node' crashes (e.g. release a lock)
while it does not make much sense with remote client.
Radim
Please let me know if you have objections/if there something I
have missed.
Radim
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com <mailto:rvansa@redhat.com>>
JBoss Performance Team
_______________________________________________
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