RE: [jbosscache-dev] Habanero: implementing peek() and _*() methods

If you expose these in the SPI, then it is not meant for end users, isn't it? -----Original Message----- From: Manik Surtani [mailto:manik@jboss.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:25 PM To: Ben Wang Cc: jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: Re: [jbosscache-dev] Habanero: implementing peek() and _* () methods I agree that access to _* methods will be useful/necessary. This is why I proposed an interceptor chain bypass option, rather than directly exposing methods. My problem with directly exposing methods is that end users may see these and use them. -- Manik Surtani Lead, JBoss Cache JBoss, a division of Red Hat Email: manik(a)jboss.org Telephone: +44 7786 702 706 MSN: manik(a)surtani.org Yahoo/AIM/Skype: maniksurtani On 16 Aug 2006, at 03:49, Ben Wang wrote: > Since I haven't done the integration so it is difficult to say for > sure. But I have a feeling that I will need to have the access to > _* methods as well from PojoCache. So would it be OK then to create a > delegate interface from CacheSPI (e.g., NakedNode, in that calls here > are not going thru any interceptor chain) that exposes these APIs? > User can still access these but at least it doesn't pollute the SPI > interfaces. > > BTW, maybe this deserves a forum thread? :-) > > My 2 cents, > > -Ben > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jbosscache-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:jbosscache-dev- > bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Manik Surtani > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:17 PM > To: jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > Subject: [jbosscache-dev] Habanero: implementing peek() and _*() > methods > > In 2.0.0, all interceptors have a reference to a CacheSPI only. > > This causes a problem in some interceptors (cache loader, lock > interceptors, etc) which currently make a few direct calls to _get > (), > _put(), etc. to perform operations on the cache while bypassing the > interceptor stack entirely. > > What do people think the best way would be do provide this access for > very specialised cases, but not exposing such calls in the CacheSPI > interface for generic Interceptors people may implement? > > I'm currently doing this by creating a 'bypassInterceptorChain' > option and then calling a standard put() or get(), but this is at > best > a hack, plus it exposes the 'bypassInterceptorChain' option in a > public API for users to (ab)use. Any better ideas? > > Cheers, > -- > Manik Surtani > > Lead, JBoss Cache > JBoss, a division of Red Hat > > Email: manik(a)jboss.org > Telephone: +44 7786 702 706 > MSN: manik(a)surtani.org > Yahoo/AIM/Skype: maniksurtani > > > _______________________________________________ > jbosscache-dev mailing list > jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosscache-dev