Vladimir,
If the API is so bad then it might take much more time to make up and roll out
the new. Plus, there should be a community member who is ready to take it over.
My suggestion would be to accept this contribution and initiate an activity
towards the new API if you like.
Personally, I considered this API as one of the most vivid we have basing on my
practical usage experience. I was aware of initial query’s pitfalls but isn’t
it something we can put on paper?
—
Denis
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 6:04 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
