Sergi,
I've made changes to the API according to your valuable
recommendations, thank you very much for giving them. Please refer to
PR to see current state of the work.
Will surely look into ODBC, .NET and Visor. Though they will most
likely have to support a new feature rather than considerably change
existing logic.
- Alex
2016-07-27 14:23 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
> Please don't forget about ODBC, .NET and Visor. They all have to work in
> the same way.
>
> Sergi
>
> 2016-07-27 14:15 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
> alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>
>> OK, I've found that bold cast to QueryCursor<R> in IgniteCacheProxy
>> and had a look at how SqlFieldsQuery is used in JDBC driver. Thanks.
>>
>> - Alex
>>
>> 2016-07-27 13:02 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
>> > Where did you see R in SqlFieldsQuery?
>> >
>> > Sergi
>> >
>> > 2016-07-27 12:59 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>> > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >> Sergi,
>> >>
>> >> But current signature of query() method returns not just some
>> >> iterator, but rather iterator of R which is type param of Query -
>> >> i.e., we won't be able to return an int inside a QueryCursor<R>. At
>> >> least without API change (signature of query() method will have to be
>> >> changed to drop genericness, or in some other weird way). Is this what
>> >> we really want? Or am I missing something in your point?
>> >>
>> >> - Alex
>> >>
>> >> 2016-07-27 12:51 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > Exactly. This will allow our Jdbc driver to work transparently.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sergi
>> >> >
>> >> > 2016-07-27 12:40 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>> >> > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Sergi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You wrote:
>> >> >> > I'd prefer to return the same information, so it will not be empty
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do you mean return iterator with single element that denotes number
>> of
>> >> >> rows?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dmitriy,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You wrote:
>> >> >> > What is the ticket number for this. Is the new API documented
>> there?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Overall issue number is 2294. There's no particular issue on API
>> >> >> changes, but creating one seems to be a good idea, I will do it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - Alex
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2016-07-27 9:20 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>:
>> >> >> > What is the ticket number for this. Is the new API documented
>> there?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Sergi Vladykin <
>> >> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I don't see anything ugly in empty iterator, sorry if I insulted
>> your
>> >> >> taste
>> >> >> >> of beauty.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If you will take a look at Jdbc, you will see that
>> >> >> Statement.executeUpdate
>> >> >> >> method returns number of updated rows, I'd prefer to return the
>> same
>> >> >> >> information, so it will not be empty (beauty is restored!).
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Sergi
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 2016-07-26 18:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>> >> >> >> alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > I see your point. But what about my concerns from initial post?
>> >> >> >> > Particularly about signatures of existing methods? I personally
>> >> don't
>> >> >> >> > like an option of query() method always returning an empty
>> iterator
>> >> >> >> > for any non-select query, it seems ugly design wise.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > - Alex
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > 2016-07-26 18:15 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <
>> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> > > BTW, the simplest way to solve this issue is to allow running
>> SQL
>> >> >> >> > commands
>> >> >> >> > > inside of SqlFieldsQuery.
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > We may add some additional convenience API for updates if we
>> >> want,
>> >> >> but
>> >> >> >> > JDBC
>> >> >> >> > > client will always call it like this:
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > cache.query(new SqlFieldsQuery("INSERT INTO MY_TABLE
>> >> >> >> > > VALUES(?,?)").setArgs(1,2));
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > This will resolve any ambiguity.
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > Sergi
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > 2016-07-26 17:56 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin <
>> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >:
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >> I don't like any pre-parsing, especially with some libraries
>> >> other
>> >> >> >> than
>> >> >> >> > >> H2. H2 itself has enough quirks to multiply it on quirks of
>> >> another
>> >> >> >> > library.
>> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> > >> This is exactly what I was talking about - we need some
>> single
>> >> >> entry
>> >> >> >> > point
>> >> >> >> > >> on API for all the SQL commands and queries. Thats why I
>> >> suggested
>> >> >> >> > >> SqlUpdate to extend Query. To me its is the cleanest
>> approach.
>> >> May
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> > >> need to change in some backward compatible way this Query
>> >> >> hierarchy to
>> >> >> >> > get
>> >> >> >> > >> rid of extra methods but the idea is still the same.
>> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> > >> Sergi
>> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> > >> 2016-07-26 14:34 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko <
>> >> >> >> > >> alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> > >>> Guys,
>> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> > >>> I would like to advance the discussion further. There's one
>> >> quite
>> >> >> >> > >>> important question that arose based on current state of
>> work on
>> >> >> this
>> >> >> >> > >>> issue. If we use some kind of interactive console, like
>> Visor,
>> >> >> then
>> >> >> >> > >>> how should it know whether SQL query it is requested to
>> execute
>> >> >> >> > >>> returns a result set or not? In JDBC world, solution is
>> quite
>> >> >> simple
>> >> >> >> -
>> >> >> >> > >>> there's base interface called Statement that all commands
>> >> >> implement,
>> >> >> >> > >>> and it has magic isResultSet method that tells whether
>> >> statement
>> >> >> is a
>> >> >> >> > >>> query or an update command. The API proposed now has
>> separate
>> >> >> Query
>> >> >> >> > >>> and Update operations which I believe to be a right thing by
>> >> the
>> >> >> >> > >>> reasons I outlined in the beginning of this thread. However,
>> >> their
>> >> >> >> > >>> lack of common ancestor prevents possible console clients
>> from
>> >> >> >> running
>> >> >> >> > >>> text SQL commands in a fully transparent manner - like
>> >> >> >> > >>> IgniteCache.execute(String sql). Therefore I see two
>> possible
>> >> >> ways of
>> >> >> >> > >>> solving this:
>> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> > >>> - we change API so that it includes new class or interface
>> >> >> parenting
>> >> >> >> > >>> both Query and Update, and clients use it to communicate
>> with
>> >> >> cache
>> >> >> >> > >>> - we let (or make :) ) the client determine command type
>> >> >> >> independently
>> >> >> >> > >>> and behave accordingly - for it to work it will have some
>> kind
>> >> of
>> >> >> >> > >>> command parsing by itself just to determine its type. Visor
>> >> >> console
>> >> >> >> > >>> may use simple library like JSqlParser
>> >> >> >> > >>> (https://github.com/JSQLParser/JSqlParser; dual LGPL
>> 2.1/ASF
>> >> 2.0
>> >> >> >> > >>> licensed) to determine request type in terms of JDBC, and
>> >> behave
>> >> >> >> > >>> accordingly.
>> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> > >>> Personally, I think that the second approach is better - and
>> >> >> here's
>> >> >> >> > why.
>> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> > >>> First, it does not seem wise to change API simply to make
>> >> console
>> >> >> (or
>> >> >> >> > >>> any other) clients simpler. Programmatic APIs should be
>> concise
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> > >>> short for programmatic use, console clients should be easy
>> to
>> >> use
>> >> >> >> from
>> >> >> >> > >>> console - and that's it: after all, console client exists to
>> >> free
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> >> > >>> user from burden of doing things programmatically, so its
>> aim
>> >> is
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> > >>> adapt API to console or whatever UI.
>> >> >> >> > >>> Second, possible complications in client implied by such
>> >> approach
>> >> >> >> > >>> certainly won't be dramatic - I don't think that additional
>> >> single
>> >> >> >> > >>> query parsing operation in client code will make it much
>> >> harder to
>> >> >> >> > >>> develop.
>> >> >> >> > >>> Third, as I see it now, adding a new "synthetic" entity and
>> new
>> >> >> >> method
>> >> >> >> > >>> would take more effort to adapting the client to new API.
>> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> > >>> Dmitry, Sergi, I would like to hear what you think about it
>> >> all.
>> >> >> >> > Thanks.
>> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> > >>> - Alex
>> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> > >>> 2016-07-21 21:17 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> >> >> dsetrak...@apache.org
>> >> >> >> >:
>> >> >> >> > >>> > OK, then using your analogy, the current behavior in
>> Ignite
>> >> is
>> >> >> >> MERGE
>> >> >> >> > for
>> >> >> >> > >>> > the most part.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >> > >>> > My preference is that Ignite SQL should work no different
>> >> from
>> >> >> >> > >>> traditional
>> >> >> >> > >>> > databases, which means:
>> >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >> > >>> > - INSERT is translated into *putIfAbsent()* call in Ignite
>> >> >> >> > >>> > - UPDATE is translated into *replace()* call in Ignite
>> >> >> >> > >>> > - MERGE is translated into *put()* call in Ignite
>> >> >> >> > >>> > - For SQL BATCH calls we should delegate to Ignite batch
>> >> >> >> operations,
>> >> >> >> > >>> e.g.
>> >> >> >> > >>> > *putAll()*
>> >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >> > >>> > The above should hold true for atomic and transactional
>> >> >> put/putAll
>> >> >> >> > >>> calls,
>> >> >> >> > >>> > as well as for the data streamer.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >> > >>> > Does this make sense?
>> >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >> > >>> > D.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >> > >>> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Sergi Vladykin <
>> >> >> >> > >>> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> > >>> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> > >>> >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> No, this does not make sense.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> There is no upsert mode in databases. There are
>> operations:
>> >> >> >> INSERT,
>> >> >> >> > >>> UPDATE,
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> DELETE, MERGE.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> I want to have clear understanding of how they have to
>> >> behave
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> SQL
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> databases and how they will actually behave in Ignite in
>> >> >> different
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> scenarios. Also I want to have clear understanding of
>> >> >> performance
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> implications of each decision here.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> Anything wrong with that?
>> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> Sergi
>> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> >> >> >> > >>> dsetrak...@apache.org>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Serj, are you asking what will happen as of today? Then
>> >> the
>> >> >> >> answer
>> >> >> >> > >>> to all
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > your questions is that duplicate keys are not an issue,
>> >> and
>> >> >> >> Ignite
>> >> >> >> > >>> always
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > operates in **upsert** mode (which is essentially a
>> >> *“put(…)”
>> >> >> >> > >>> *method).
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > However, the *“insert”* that is suggested by Alex would
>> >> >> delegate
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > *“putIfAbsent(…)”*, which in database world makes more
>> >> sense.
>> >> >> >> > >>> However, in
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > this case, the *“update”* syntax should delegate to
>> >> >> >> > *“replace(…)”*,
>> >> >> >> > >>> as
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > update should fail in case if a key is absent.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Considering the above, a notion of “*upsert”* or
>> “*merge”
>> >> >> >> > *operation
>> >> >> >> > >>> is
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > very much needed, as it will give a user an option to
>> >> perform
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > “insert-or-update” in 1 call.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Does this make sense?
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > D.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Sergi Vladykin <
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > I'd prefer to do MERGE operation last because in H2
>> it
>> >> is
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> >> > >>> standard
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > ANSI
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > SQL MERGE. Or may be not implement it at all, or may
>> be
>> >> >> >> > contribute
>> >> >> >> > >>> ANSI
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > correct version to H2, then implement it on Ignite.
>> >> Need to
>> >> >> >> > >>> investigate
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > semantics deeper before making any decisions here.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > Lets start with simple scenarios for INSERT and go
>> >> through
>> >> >> all
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > possible
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > cases and answer the questions:
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - What will happen on key conflict in TX cache?
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - What will happen on key conflict in Atomic cache?
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - What will happen with the previous two if we use
>> >> >> DataLoader?
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > - How to make these operations efficient (it will be
>> >> simple
>> >> >> >> > enough
>> >> >> >> > >>> to
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > implement them with separate put/putIfAbsent
>> operations
>> >> but
>> >> >> >> > >>> probably we
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > will need some batching like putAllIfAbsent for
>> >> >> efficiency)?
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > As for API, we still will need to have a single entry
>> >> point
>> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> > >>> all SQL
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > queries/commands to allow any console work with it
>> >> >> >> > transparently.
>> >> >> >> > >>> It
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > would
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > be great if we will be able to come up with something
>> >> >> >> consistent
>> >> >> >> > >>> with
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > this
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > idea on public API.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > Sergi
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > dsetrak...@gridgain.com>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > Like the idea of merge and insert. I need more
>> time to
>> >> >> think
>> >> >> >> > >>> about
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> the
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > API
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > changes.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > Sergi, what do you think?
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > Dmitriy
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > On Jul 20, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Alexander Paschenko <
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Thus, I suggest that we implement MERGE as a
>> >> separate
>> >> >> >> > >>> operation
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > backed
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > by putIfAbsent operation, while INSERT will be
>> >> >> implemented
>> >> >> >> via
>> >> >> >> > >>> put.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > Sorry, of course I meant that MERGE has to be
>> >> >> put-based,
>> >> >> >> > while
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> INSERT
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > has to be putIfAbsent-based.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > 2016-07-20 12:30 GMT+03:00 Alexander Paschenko
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > > <alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Hell Igniters,
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> In this thread I would like to share and discuss
>> >> some
>> >> >> >> > >>> thoughts on
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > DML
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> operations' implementation, so let's start and
>> >> keep it
>> >> >> >> > here.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > Everyone
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> is of course welcome to share their suggestions.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> For starters, I was thinking about semantics of
>> >> >> INSERT.
>> >> >> >> In
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > traditional
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> RDBMSs, INSERT works only for records whose
>> primary
>> >> >> keys
>> >> >> >> > don't
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> conflict with those of records that are already
>> >> >> >> persistent
>> >> >> >> > -
>> >> >> >> > >>> you
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > can't
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> try to insert the same key more than once
>> because
>> >> >> you'll
>> >> >> >> > get
>> >> >> >> > >>> an
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > error.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> However, semantics of cache put is obviously
>> >> >> different -
>> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> > >>> does
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> not
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> have anything about duplicate keys, it just
>> quietly
>> >> >> >> updates
>> >> >> >> > >>> values
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > in
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> case of keys' duplication. Still, cache has
>> >> >> putIfAbsent
>> >> >> >> > >>> operation
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> is closer to traditional notion of INSERT, and
>> H2's
>> >> >> SQL
>> >> >> >> > >>> dialect
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> has
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> MERGE operation which corresponds to semantics
>> of
>> >> >> cache
>> >> >> >> > put.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> Thus, I
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> suggest that we implement MERGE as a separate
>> >> >> operation
>> >> >> >> > >>> backed by
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> putIfAbsent operation, while INSERT will be
>> >> >> implemented
>> >> >> >> via
>> >> >> >> > >>> put.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> And one more, probably more important thing: I
>> >> suggest
>> >> >> >> > that we
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > create
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> separate class Update and corresponding
>> operation
>> >> >> >> update()
>> >> >> >> > in
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> IgniteCache. The reasons are as follows:
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - Query bears some flags that are clearly
>> redundant
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> > Update
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> (page
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> size, locality)
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - query() method in IgniteCache (one that
>> accepts
>> >> >> Query)
>> >> >> >> > and
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> query()
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> methods in GridQueryIndexing return iterators.
>> So,
>> >> if
>> >> >> we
>> >> >> >> > >>> strive to
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> leave interfaces unchanged, we still will
>> introduce
>> >> >> some
>> >> >> >> > >>> design
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> ugliness like query methods returning empty
>> >> iterators
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> > >>> certain
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> queries, and/or query flags that indicate
>> whether
>> >> >> it's an
>> >> >> >> > >>> update
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > query
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> or not, etc.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - If some Queries are update queries, then
>> >> continuous
>> >> >> >> > queries
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> can't
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > be
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> based on them - more design-wise ugly checks and
>> >> stuff
>> >> >> >> like
>> >> >> >> > >>> that.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> - I'm pretty sure there's more I don't know
>> about.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Comments and suggestions are welcome. Sergi
>> >> Vladykin,
>> >> >> >> > Dmitry
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Setrakyan, your opinions are of particular
>> >> interest,
>> >> >> >> please
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> advise.
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >>
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Regards,
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > > >> Alex
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >
>> >> >> >> > >>> >>
>> >> >> >> > >>>
>> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>
