Hello, Vladimir.
class ContinuousQueryCacheEntryListener implements CacheEntryListener {
ContinuousQueryRemoteFilter rmtFilter;
ContinuousQueryRemoteTransformer rmtTransformer;
ContinuousQueryLocalCallback locCb;
}
I think class you proposed should be separated in two because of generic(as
I do in my pull request with existing ContinuousQuery).
If we setup ContinuousQuery *without* transformer we got CacheEntryEvent<K,
V> in listener.
If we setup ContinuousQuery *with* transformer we got T in listener -
object of type T produced by transformer.
2017-09-12 16:04 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:
> My opinion is that our query API is big piece of ... you know, especially
> ContinuousQuery. A lot of concepts and features are mixed in a single
> entity, what makes it hard to understand and use. Let's finally deprecate
> ContinuousQuery and design nice and consistent API. E.g.:
>
> interface IgniteCache {
> UUID addListener(CacheEntryListener listener)
> void removeListener(UUID listenerId);
> }
>
> This method set's a listener on all nodes which will process event locally,
> no network communication. Now if you want semantics similar to existing
> continuous queries, you use special entry listener type:
>
> class ContinuousQueryCacheEntryListener implements CacheEntryListener {
> ContinuousQueryRemoteFilter rmtFilter;
> ContinuousQueryRemoteTransformer rmtTransformer;
> ContinuousQueryLocalCallback locCb;
> }
>
> Last, "initial query" concept should be dropped from "continuous query"
> feature completely. It doesn't guarantee any kind of atomicity or
> visibility wrt to cache events, so it adds no value. The same behavior
> could be achieved as follows:
>
> cache.addListener(...)
> QueryCursor cursor = cache.query(initialQuery);
>
> Vladimir.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Dmitry, can you please take a look at public API change.
> >
> > Ticket - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-425
> > PR - https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2372
> >
> > Issues:
> > 1. Do you see any other option other than creating separate class? As for
> > me I don't.
> > 2. In a new class we still have initial query which uses <K, V> types
> which
> > is questionable.
> >
> > Igniters, please share your thoughts as well. Public API is the face of
> our
> > product we need to make it as convenient and consistent as we can.
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
>
--
Nikolay Izhikov
nizhikov....@gmail.com
