[jbosscache-dev] JBCACHE-388 Provide modified data in callbacks

[Brian Stansberry]

How common is the use case where the listener wants to know the
differences?  I'd be concerned about the overhead of creating objects to
encapsulate the diff every time there is a change -- just so those
objects can be passed to a CacheListener that ignores the data.

OTOH, even if the current approach of just handing out the new data map
is used, that should at least be a Collections.unmodifiableMap wrapping
the internal data structure, so there's overhead there as well. Probably
a wash, except in the put(Fqn, Map) case, where doing the diff is more
tedious.

I guess I have no strong opinion on this...

jbosscache-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org wrote:
> Hmm, which approach do people prefer?
> 
> And how would a nodeModified event from an operation like put(Fqn,
> Map) be represented, since it may represent both data added
> as well as data modified?  I don't think this should result
> in multiple callbacks.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
>> Yes, I did realize that. But implementation wise, it should be
>> straightforward since Cache knows exactly the identifier, right? We
>> just need to add an "identifier" enum in the nodeModified callback.
>> Downside is one more parameter but upside is faster processing such
>> that we don't hog the calling thread.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Manik Surtani [mailto:msurtani at redhat.com]
>> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 11:15 PM
>> To: Ben Wang
>> Cc: jbosscache-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> Subject: Re: [jbosscache-dev] JBCACHE-388 Provide modified data in
>> callbacks 
>> 
>> Well, nodeModified covers 3 scenarios:
>> 
>> 1) Data added to map
>> 2) Data removed from map
>> 3) Existing map data changed
>> 
>> if we just passed in deltas, we'd also need to pass in keys to
>> describe the operation.  I.e., a nodeVisited event could pass in a
>> key-value pair, but we'd also need to pass in an identifier to
>> describe the modification.  Which makes it pretty tedious.  This is
>> why I opted for just passing a snapshot of the state of data before
>> and after the mod. 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Manik Surtani
>> 
>> Lead, JBoss Cache
>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>> 
>> Email: msurtani at redhat.com
>> Telephone: +44 7786 702 706
>> MSN: manik at surtani.org
>> Yahoo/AIM/Skype: maniksurtani
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 29 Oct 2006, at 16:20, Ben Wang wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, are are right. Silly me, I was looking at the pre only.
>>> 
>>> Still, my question is that will it make more sense during post-
>>> nodeModified notification to deliver only the data modified (not the
>>> new data map). If I am only interested what portion of my data has
>>> been modified (and I belive this is a quite common use case), then I
>>> would need to keep an old data map and diff it with the new data
>>> map. Doable but it would be a performance killer for sure.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> -Ben
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Manik Surtani [mailto:msurtani at redhat.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:14 PM
>>> To: Ben Wang
>>> Cc: jbosscache-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> Subject: Re: [jbosscache-dev] JBCACHE-388 Provide modified data in
>>> callbacks 
>>> 
>>> Is this when pre is true or false?
>>> 
>>> If pre is true, the data will be the old data.  If pre is false, it
>>> will be the new data. --
>>> Manik Surtani
>>> 
>>> Lead, JBoss Cache
>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>> 
>>> Email: msurtani at redhat.com
>>> Telephone: +44 7786 702 706
>>> MSN: manik at surtani.org
>>> Yahoo/AIM/Skype: maniksurtani
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 27 Oct 2006, at 13:47, Ben Wang wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Manik,
>>>> 
>>>> Can you clarify the semantics for the modified callbacks?
>>>> Specifically, I am looking at the test case:
>>>> CacheListenerTest.testRemoveData()
>>>> calling
>>>>       cache.remove(fqn, "key2");
>>>> Still has the nodeModified() coming with the original data map. Is
>>>> this the expected behavior? 
>>>> 
>>>> I am hoping to see a semantics that bundles exactly the modified
>>>> data. 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> -Ben