Il sab 18 ago 2018, 17:26 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 2:12 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Nice work Sijie,
> > Some comments after the first read, just thinking out loud...
> > Overall looks a good idea and implementable.
> >
> > We should cite somewhere the case of scope=0 and ledgerId = -1 which is a
> > very special case for usthe.
> >
>
> For BC reason, negative ledger id are not supported when scope == 0. We
> effectively only support 63 bit.
>

Fine to me

We should state clearly in the BP and then in javadocs and docs that not
the full 128bit space is handled, but there is a class of combinations
which won't work (scopeid = 0 and ledgerid < 0).





> We can use versions on clients to distinguish whether they are old clients
> or new clients, then handle this case differently.
>
> So this special case should not be special for any new clients.
>
> We should also state that scopeid and ledgerid < 0 is not supported or it
> > is not clear to me how we will handle that case.
> > The case of scope < 0 is not clear to me as well, maybe I have to read
> more
> > carefully the doc.
>
>
> I think I answer this with my comment above.
>
>
> >
> > We are treating the global space of ledgerids as a 2  level hierarchy and
> > this is good for compatibility.
> > But thinking about a new application, which starts with uuids I think it
> > can be tricky, maybe we should add utilities/APIs to work with UUID
> > directly.
>
>
> The ledgerQualifiedName is the hex presentation of UUID, proposed to add to
> CLI tool.
>
> We can add it to API as well. However I would defer adding it until we need
> it or after we are on 128 bits. BC is the top concern.
>
>
> > For this new kind of application the space of ids would be flat and not
> > hierarchical (UUID are not hierarchical as far as I know, but I may be
> > wrong).
>
>
> In a lot of places, 128 bit is not well supported. So people would divide
> into two parts any way, msb and lsb.
>
>
> >
> >
> > We should also support listing the whole flat space
>
>
> Sure it can be added. I don’t see a reason we can’t. However IMO these are
> new features after we are on 128 bit. For the concerns in this BP, we are
> more focused on how we can transition from 64 bit to 128 bit.
>

Okay

Last comment:
We are going to have a lot of special cases in layout of data/zk ledger
manager, to handle scopeid = 0.
I am thinking to a brand new installation, without upgrade/BC concerns, I
wonder if we have some flag not to have that tricks, I am talking about the
different dbs on rocks db, the layout of indexes...and so on.

This is not a real problem but I wonder if we ca handle this case of new
applications cleanly

Enrico



> or as a last
> > alternative we should add a way to list the space of scopeids, because
> > otherwise the application must store the list of scopeids, and for it it
> > will be a set of half UUIDs.
> >
> > Thanks for driving this
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> >
> > Il ven 17 ago 2018, 23:52 Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri <jujj...@gmail.com>
> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > Thanks a lot, Sijie for the awesome doc.
> > > Let's pool some more thoughts into this and size the work.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > JV
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > As promised in last community meeting, I put up all the thoughts and
> > > > discussion with JV I had into a BP for supporting 128-bit ledger id.
> I
> > > > tried my best to cover all the aspects that I can think of. There can
> > be
> > > > places that I miss. so please take a look and let me know what you
> > think.
> > > >
> > > > BP PR: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1611
> > > > Google doc:
> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cu54dNSV2ZrdWCi40LcyX8NxXGRCW
> > > > 0609T_ewmK9BWM
> > > >
> > > > - Sijie
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jvrao
> > > ---
> > > First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
> then
> > > you win. - Mahatma Gandhi
> > >
> > --
> >
> >
> > -- Enrico Olivelli
> >
>
-- 


-- Enrico Olivelli

Reply via email to