6:02 a.m.
Well, OGM and Infinispan are different species :) So, Infinispan being
what it is today - a non-homogenous, schema-less KV store, without
support for entity associations (except embedding) - which simplifies
the whole thing a lot, should we or should we not provide transparent
cross-cacheManager search capabilities, in this exact context? Vote?
There were some points raised previously like /"if you search for more
than one cache transparently, then you probably need to CRUD for more
than one cache transparently as well"/. In the SQL world you would also
probably CRUD against a table or set of tables and then query against a
view - a bit like what we're doing here. I don't see any problem with
this in principle. There is however something currently missing in the
query result set API - it currently does not provide you the keys of the
matching entities. People work around this by storing the key in the
entity. Now with the addition of the cross-cacheManager search we'll
probably need to fix the result api and also provide a reference to the
cache (or just the name?) where the entity is stored.
The (enforced) one entity type per cache rule is not conceptually or
technically required for implementing this, so I won't start raving
against it :) Sane users should apply it however.
On 02/18/2014 12:13 AM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
By the way, Mircea, Sanne and I had quite a long discussion about
this one and the idea of one cache per entity. It turns out that the right (as in easy)
solution does involve a higher level programming model like OGM provides. You can simulate
it yourself using the Infinispan APIs but it is just cumbersome.
> On 17 févr. 2014, at 18:51, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon 2014-02-17 18:43, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>>
>>> On 05 Feb 2014, at 17:30, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed 2014-02-05 15:53, Mircea Markus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:32 AM, Emmanuel Bernard
<emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure searching for any cache is useful. What I was advocating is that
if you search for more than one cache transparently, then you probably need to CRUD for
more than one cache transparently as well. And this is not being discussed.
>>>> Not sure what you mean by CRUD over multiple caches? ATM one can run a TX
over multiple caches, but I think there's something else you have in mind :-)
>>>
>>> //some unified query giving me entries pointing by fk copy to bar and
>>> //buz objects. So I need to manually load these references.
>>>
>>> //happy emmanuel
>>> Cache unifiedCache = cacheManager.getMotherOfAllCaches();
>>> Bar bar = unifiedCache.get(foo);
>>> Buz buz = unifiedCache.get(baz);
>>>
>>> //not so happy emmanuel
>>> Cache fooCache = cacheManager.getCache("foo");
>>> Bar bar = fooCache.get(foo);
>>> Cache bazCache = cacheManager.getCache("baz");
>>> Buz buz = bazCache.put(baz);
>> Would something like what Paul suggests in
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3640 help you better? IOW, have a single cache, and
then have a filtered view for Bar or Buz types? Not sure I understand the differences in
your code changes in terms of what makes you happy vs not.
> Not really.
> What makes me unhappy is to have to keep in my app all the
> references to these specific cache store instances. The filtering
> approach only moves the problem.
> _______________________________________________
> 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