Andrey, Valya, There is another problem here. What is we decide to add some existing setter method to MBean? If it has signature "T setSomething(...)", we will not be able to do so. We need to understand how to deal with it, so that possible further improvements to MBean-s are not compromised. Any ideas? May be we should fully decouple MBeans into separate classes?
E.g. instead of: FifoEvictionPolicy implements FifoEvictionPolicyMBean we will have FifoEvictionPolicy FifoEvictionPolicyMBeanImpl implements FifoEvictionPolicyMBean This way public API will be fully decoupled form JMX what seems reasonable to me. Thoughts? On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > wrote: > Val, > > void setBatchSize(int batchSize) > void setMaxMemorySize(long maxMemSize) > void setMaxSize(int max) > void setExcludePaths(Collection<String> excludePaths) > void setMaxBlocks(int maxBlocks) > void setParallelJobsNumber(int num) > void setWaitingJobsNumber(int num) > > https://ignite.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/javadoc/org/ > apache/ignite/cache/eviction/fifo/FifoEvictionPolicyMBean.html > https://ignite.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/javadoc/org/ > apache/ignite/cache/eviction/igfs/IgfsPerBlockLruEvictionPolicyMXBean.html > https://ignite.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/javadoc/org/ > apache/ignite/cache/eviction/lru/LruEvictionPolicyMBean.html > https://ignite.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/javadoc/org/ > apache/ignite/cache/eviction/sorted/SortedEvictionPolicyMBean.html > https://ignite.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/javadoc/org/ > apache/ignite/spi/collision/fifoqueue/FifoQueueCollisionSpiMBean.html > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Andrey, > > > > Can you list all setters that we have on MBeans? > > > > -Val > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Andrey Mashenkov < > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > Changing MBeans setters signature is bad idea. AOP tests failed on TC > > with > > > this change. > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Val, > > > > > > > > Good catch! Can we try leaving SPIs and base methods untouched? Will > it > > > API > > > > be consistent in this case? > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > I tend to think that the problem is that we try to apply 'builder > > > > approach' > > > > > to *ALL* setters. Let's approach this smarter. > > > > > > > > > > This approach is actually applicable only for configuration setters > > > > > available on public API, i.e. it's only about setters on > > > ***Configuration > > > > > classes and SPI *implementations*. For SPI interface methods like > > > > > 'CollisionSpi.setExternalCollisionListener' this makes no sense, I > > > would > > > > > not touch them. > > > > > > > > > > The only thing I still don't like is MBeans. Returning something > > except > > > > > void on MBean interfaces look ugly, but without doing this we will > > > break > > > > > API consistency on the implementation. Any ideas on how to approach > > > this? > > > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, “public modifications” -> “public APIs” > > > > > > > > > > > > — > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the changes affect public modifications don’t forget to > update > > > > this > > > > > > page: > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/ > > > > > > Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <https://cwiki.apache.org/ > > > > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > — > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Feb 3, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Vladimir, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Ok. I'll go ahead with changing SPI interfaces and run TC > test. > > > > > > >> I think, it would be better to have this branch merged to > master > > > as > > > > 2 > > > > > > >> separate commits at least. > > > > > > >> And may be we should make changes of SPI interfaces in > separate > > > Jira > > > > > > >> ticket? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> Andrey, > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> This is very important change from usability standpoint. But > my > > > > main > > > > > > >>> concern is changes to SPI *interfaces*. If we do so users who > > > > > > implemented > > > > > > >>> custom SPIs will have broken compatibility. On the other > hand, > > I > > > > > doubt > > > > > > >>> there will be too much affected users, and we break > compilation > > > in > > > > AI > > > > > > 2.0 > > > > > > >>> anyway. So looks like we can go ahead with it. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Thoughts? > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > > >>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> My only concern is MBean interfaces. These are not called > from > > > > code, > > > > > > but > > > > > > >>>> from MBean viewers, and I'm not sure setters not returning > > voids > > > > > will > > > > > > be > > > > > > >>>> properly treated as setters by these viewers. This needs to > be > > > > > > checked. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> -Val > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > > >>>> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Val, > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Yes, you are right. I don't think we should care about > > > > compilation > > > > > > >>>>> error on user side, as we break compatibility with previous > > > > > versions. > > > > > > >>>>> But we talk about public interfaces and may be someone has > > some > > > > > cons > > > > > > >>>>> or suggestions? > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > > >>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Andrey, > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> In which case compatibility is broken? If there is a > method > > > that > > > > > > >>>> returns > > > > > > >>>>>> void and you change it to return some type, it doesn't > break > > > > > > >>> anything, > > > > > > >>>>>> because currently nobody can assign the result of this > > method > > > > to a > > > > > > >>>>>> variable. I.e. in old code the returned value will be > always > > > > > > ignored, > > > > > > >>>>>> therefore it can be of any type. > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Is there anything else that I'm missing? > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> -Val > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > > >>>>>> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Igniters, > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm working on IGNITE-4564 [1] to make our configuration > > > > classes > > > > > > >>> and > > > > > > >>>>> SPI > > > > > > >>>>>>> classes more convenient. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> There is no problem to change return type in setter > method > > > > > > >>> signatures > > > > > > >>>>>>> and override methods in child child classes to make them > > > return > > > > > > >>> more > > > > > > >>>>>>> accurate type. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> But, I found that we have set methods in some of our > > > interfaces > > > > > and > > > > > > >>>>>>> changing its signature may broke compatibility with user > > > > > > >>>>> implementations. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Here are example interfaces with setters: > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.cache.eviction.fifo. > > > FifoEvictionPolicyMBean > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.cache.eviction.igfs. > > > > > > >>> IgfsPerBlockLruEvictionPolicyM > > > > > > >>>>>> XBean > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.cache.eviction.lru. > > LruEvictionPolicyMBean > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.cache.eviction.sorted. > > > > > SortedEvictionPolicyMBean > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.spi.checkpoint.CheckpointSpi > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.spi.collision.CollisionSpi > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.spi.collision.fifoqueue. > > > > > > >>> FifoQueueCollisionSpiMBean > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> However we have interfaces with NO setters > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.spi.loadbalancing.adaptive. > > > > > > >>>>>>> AdaptiveLoadBalancingSpiMBean. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> What can we do with it? > > > > > > >>>>>>> Change signature of setters without regarding > > compatibility? > > > Or > > > > > may > > > > > > >>>> be > > > > > > >>>>> it > > > > > > >>>>>>> is possible to remove setters from some interfaces? > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Thought? > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4564 > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> -- > > > > > > >>>>> С уважением, > > > > > > >>>>> Машенков Андрей Владимирович > > > > > > >>>>> Тел. +7-921-932-61-82 > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Best regards, > > > > > > >>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > >>>>> Cerr: +7-921-932-61-82 > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> С уважением, > > > > > > >> Машенков Андрей Владимирович > > > > > > >> Тел. +7-921-932-61-82 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Best regards, > > > > > > >> Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > >> Cerr: +7-921-932-61-82 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > С уважением, > > > Машенков Андрей Владимирович > > > Тел. +7-921-932-61-82 > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > Cerr: +7-921-932-61-82 > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov >
