[infinispan-dev] Feedback and requests on clustered and remote listeners

Mircea Markus mmarkus at redhat.com
Tue Sep 23 09:31:17 EDT 2014

On Sep 23, 2014, at 16:27, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org> wrote:

> On 23 Sep 2014, at 14:53, Mircea Markus <mmarkus at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 23, 2014, at 15:18, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org> wrote:
>>>> 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 :)
>> Nicer than an enum would be an explicit method, e.g. handlePut/handleDelete/handleCreate/handleUpdate, as these would also receive the appropriate param list. Of course this means moving away from the KeyValueFilter to an UpdateFilter (good name, Radim) used only for cluster listeners. 
>> Will, what would be the overall impact on the A
> If you do that you must also provide an abstract class with default noop operations that filter implementations would extend. Otherwise you are back with backward compatibility problems.

KeyValueFilter was introduced in 7.0, or other backward compatibility problem you have in mind?

Mircea Markus
Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org)

More information about the infinispan-dev mailing list