Hi Igor,
The current implementation supports only STRING data type of Redis. In
addition, AFAIK, scaling Redis per dataset is normally done via running
separate instances of Redis for each dataset. Therefore my choice was storing
to the default cache. It looks fine from Redis' perspective, but probably not
from Ignite's.For other data types like HASH or SORTED SET, I planned to
specify cache name by key and treat value inside as Ignite's key-values.# Redis
has a notion of 'database' and you can switch between them, but they can be
referred only by the number, and limited to 16 databases... Not very useful,
IMO.
If you still have the default cache, the current Redis integration should work
as is (I have to recheck it, what is the JIRA ticket for the null cache issue?)
Do you just want to be sure your changes don't affect the Redis integration, or
do you want to extend it to switch between caches?
Roman
On Friday, April 21, 2017 8:17 PM, Seliverstov Igor <gvvinbl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Roman,
As far as I inderstand you're the author of the Redis protocol
implementation.
Currently I'm working on a task to prohibit null names for caches and I've
found that current implementation implies using of default (aka null named)
cache as a Redis database.
So, I need your assistance to implement Redis databases and mappings them
to particular caches.
Is it in your plans to do it in near time?
If not I'll appriciate your thoughts on how to do it properly)
Regards,
Igor
