My vote also goes for 1. I guess it is safe to assume that at this point we came to a consensus?
2017-09-27 21:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > Vote for 1. > > — > Denis > > > On Sep 26, 2017, at 11:23 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > > 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() > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ); > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
