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Btw., the javadoc is out of date, too, since it mentions default cache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