Folks, Let me summarize current naming ideas one more time:
1) [StorageConfiguration - StorageRegionConfiguration] 2) [DurableMemoryConfiguration - DataRegionConfiguration] 3) [DurableMemoryConfiguration - DurableMemoryRegionConfiguration] - out of question, as "durable memory region" is too misleading. My vote for p.1. Short, simple and intuitive. Vladimir. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Dmitriy, thank you for reply. Do you agree Memory Policy already > became > > Ignite's term? We call this configuration now > MemoryPolicy(Configuration), > > can we call new configuration elments by their existings name? We can > avoid > > introduction of second Ignite's term in that case. > > > > The refactoring is about merging memory and persistence configuration under > the same umbrella. The term "MemoryPolicy" does not make sense anymore, > given that it now also includes persistent configuration as well. > > > > > > вт, 26 сент. 2017 г. в 17:27, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > > > Dmitriy, we are not renaming classes, we are refactoring them. Prior to > > > this design, it was impossible to set persistence configuration on > > > per-cache basis. With this new design, users will be able to configure > > some > > > caches to be in-memory only and others to be on disk. > > > > > > Given that we are already refactoring, it only makes sense to pick > > better, > > > more appropriate names. > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Vladimir, it is not clear for me, why we need to rename existing > > > > configuration classes. Could you explain? And if we can't get > consensus > > > > now, should we pospond solution? > > > > > > > > My idea is that user needs this feature more than elegant names in > > > > configuration. > > > > > > > > Moreover once MemoryPolicyConfiguration was introduced as Ignite term > > it > > > is > > > > simpler to keep it as is, than create new terms. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > вт, 26 сент. 2017 г. в 16:59, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com > >: > > > > > > > > > I do not understand why we should delay with renames. Yes, it will > > > cause > > > > > questions, so we will have to put additional efforts to docs and > > > > JavaDocs. > > > > > But the earlier we do that, the better. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Dmitry Pavlov < > > dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters, sorry for late response. I didn't catch idea of > > > renaming. > > > > > > PersistentStoreConfiguration is intuitive, and > > > > MemoryPolicyConfiguration > > > > > is > > > > > > intuitive also. > > > > > > > > > > > > If we rename these classes now, it will bring more questions to > > user > > > > > list. > > > > > > Users may be confused by old and new names and by trying to match > > it. > > > > > More > > > > > > issues can came from XML configs that users already have. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we postpone the renaming? I suggest to finish 'persistence > per > > > > memory > > > > > > policy' task without renaming, and create separate JIRA issue for > > > > > creating > > > > > > future decision? > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 26 сент. 2017 г. в 15:25, Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not like DurableMemoryConfiguration, because it's quite > > > > confusing > > > > > - > > > > > > we > > > > > > > configure in-memory caches using DurableMemory class, which > > > > immediately > > > > > > > suggests that everything will be persisted. I am not sure if > this > > > is > > > > a > > > > > > > right wording choice for the documentation either. I would go > > with > > > > > > > DataStoreConfiguration and DataRegionConfiguration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --AG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-09-26 2:22 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given that we already have a notion of CacheStore which comes > > > from > > > > > > JCache > > > > > > > > spec, I think having other stores may get confusing. I like > > > > > > > > DurableMemoryConfiguration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other opinions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dima, let's finalize the design first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I understand, we are happy with idea to merge > > > > > MemoryConfiguration > > > > > > > > > and PersistentStoreConfiguration > > > > > > > > > into something what I called DataConfiguration, and to > rename > > > > > > > > > MemoryPolicyConfiguration to DataRegionConfiguration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only outstanding qurestion is whether DataConfiguration > > is > > > a > > > > > good > > > > > > > > name. > > > > > > > > > I am not very happy with it, so let's think of other > > > > alternatives. > > > > > > > Quick > > > > > > > > > ideas: > > > > > > > > > 1) StoreConfiguration - looks perfect to me - short and > > > > > > > self-describing, > > > > > > > > > but clashes a bit with existing CacheStore > > > > > > > > > 2) DataStoreConfiguration - same as p.1, but the word > "data" > > is > > > > not > > > > > > > > > necessary IMO > > > > > > > > > 3) PageStoreConfiguration? GIves a hint to our page-based > > > > > > architecture. > > > > > > > > > 4) DurableMemoryConfiguration - aligns well with our docs, > > but > > > I > > > > do > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > like it - too long and misleading > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any other ideas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer to have either [StoreConfiguration + > > > > > > > > > StoreRegionConfiguration] or [PageStoreConfiguration and > > > > > > > > > PageStoreRegionConfiguration]. Looks clean and simple. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vladimir, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please add the configuration example in the > ticket? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest we finalize the configuration changes in the > > > > original > > > > > > > > ticket > > > > > > > > > > > then: https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/browse/IGNITE-6030 > > > and > > > > > > > proceed > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > the changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-09-23 17:08 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we specify what metrics will look like? I think > we > > > > should > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > > blindly merge them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Makes sense. Thanks for catching it! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Denis Magda < > > > > > > > dma...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we’re taking the consolidation path for Memory > > and > > > > > > > > Persistence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configurations then it makes sense to merge > > > > MemoryMetrics > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PersistenceMetrics [2] plus their JMX beans. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > apache/ignite/MemoryMetrics.html < > > > > > > https://ignite.apache.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases/latest/javadoc/org/ > > > > apache/ignite/MemoryMetrics. > > > > > > html> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > apache/ignite/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PersistenceMetrics.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > — > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Dmitriy > Setrakyan < > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexey G, can you please chime in? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Vladimir > > Ozerov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Guys, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Here is my proposal: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1) MemoryPolicyConfiguration is renamed to > > > > > > > > > > > > *DataRegionConfiguration*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2) PersistenceConfiguration is merged with > > > > > > > > MemoryConfiguration > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > renamed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> to ... *DataStorageConfiguration*! It has: > > common > > > > > memory > > > > > > > > > > settings > > > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> default data region), persistence settings > (e.g. > > > > WAL) > > > > > > and > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > list > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> DataRegionConfiguration beans. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What we have in the end: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <property name="dataConfiguration"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <bean class="o.a.i.DataConfiguration"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <property name="pageSize" value="8192" > /> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <property name="persistentStorePath" > > > > > > > value="/my/path" > > > > > > > > > /> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <property name="dataRegions"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <list> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <bean > > > > > > > class="o.a.i.DataRegionConfiguration"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <property name="name" > > > > > > value="VOLATILE" > > > > > > > /> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <property name="maxSize" > > > > > > > > > > value="1_000_000_000" > > > > > > > > > > > /> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> </bean> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <bean > > > > > > > class="o.a.i.DataRegionConfiguration"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <property name="name" > > > > > > > value="PERSISTENT" > > > > > > > > /> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <property name="maxSize" > > > > > > > > > > value="1_000_000_000" > > > > > > > > > > > /> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <property name="persistent" > > > > > > > value="true" > > > > > > > > /> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> </bean> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> </list> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> </property> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> </bean> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> </property> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Makes sense? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Vladimir. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Dmitriy > > > Setrakyan < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Firstly all, why not call it DataPolicy > instead > > > of > > > > > > > > > > MemoryPolicy? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Secondly, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> why not set data policies directly on > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration. > > > > > > > > > And > > > > > > > > > > > > > lastly, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> how > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> about we combine memory and disk properties > in > > > one > > > > > bean > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > clear > > > > > > > > > > > > > > naming > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> convention? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Here is the example. Note that all properties > > > above > > > > > > must > > > > > > > > > start > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> "Memory" or "Disk". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> *IgniteConfiguration cfg = new > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> *cfg.setDataPolicies( new > > > > > DataPolicyConfiguration() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> .setName("bla"), > > .setMemoryMaxSize(1024), > > > > // > > > > > > must > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > greater > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> than > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 0, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> since memory always needs to be enabled. > > > > > > > > > > > > .setDiskMaxSize(0), > > > > > > > > > > > > > // > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> if > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> greater than 0, then persistence is enabled. > > > > );* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think this approach is much more concise > and > > > > > straight > > > > > > > > > > forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > What > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Vladimir > > Ozerov > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I prefer the second. Composition over > > > inheritance > > > > - > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> configuration is crafted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> E.g. we do not have "CacheConfiguration" > and " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> StoreEnabledCacheConfiguration". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Instead, we have "CacheConfiguration. > > > > > > > > setCacheStoreFactory". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Alexey > > > Goncharuk > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Reiterating this based on some feedback > from > > > PDS > > > > > > users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> It might be confusing to configure > > persistence > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > "MemoryPolicy", > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> another approach is to deprecate the old > > names > > > > and > > > > > > > > > introduce > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> "DataRegion" because it reflects the actual > > > state > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > data > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> disk and partially in memory. I have two > > > options > > > > in > > > > > > > mind, > > > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> them > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> looks acceptable to me, so I would like to > > have > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > feedback > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> community. Old configuration names will be > > > > > deprecated > > > > > > > > (but > > > > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> taken > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> if used for backward compatibility). Note, > > that > > > > old > > > > > > > names > > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> handles default configuration compatibility > > > very > > > > > > > nicely - > > > > > > > > > > > current > > > > > > > > > > > > > PDS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> users > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> will not need to change anything to keep > > > > everything > > > > > > > > > working. > > > > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> options I mentioned are below: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> * we have two separate classes for > in-memory > > > and > > > > > > > > persisted > > > > > > > > > > data > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> regions, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> so the configuration would look like so: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> IgniteConfiguration cfg = new > > > > > IgniteConfiguration(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> cfg.setDataRegionsConfiguration(new > > > > > > > > > > DataRegionsConfiguration() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> .setDataRegions( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> new MemoryDataRegion() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> .setName("volatileCaches") > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> .setMaxMemorySize(...), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> new PersistentDataRegion() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> .setName("persistentCaches") > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> .setMaxMemorySize(...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> .setMaxDiskSize())); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> cfg.setPersistentStoreConfiguration(new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> PersistentStoreConfiguration() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> * we have one class for data region > > > > configuration, > > > > > > but > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > have a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> sub-bean for persistence configuration: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> IgniteConfiguration cfg = new > > > > > IgniteConfiguration(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> cfg.setDataRegionsConfiguration(new > > > > > > > > > > DataRegionsConfiguration() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> .setDataRegions( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> new DataRegion() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> .setName("volatileCaches") > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> .setMaxMemorySize(...), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> new DataRegion() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> .setName("persistentCaches") > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> .setMaxMemorySize(...), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> .setPersistenceConfiguration( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> new > > > DataRegionPersistenceConfigura > > > > > > tion() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> .setMaxDiskSize(...)))); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> cfg.setPersistentStoreConfiguration(new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> PersistentStoreConfiguration() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
