Dmitriy, I would stop using the word "hashcode" in this context. Hash code has a special meaning in Ignite and is used to determine key-to-node affinity. I agree that passing "cache_name" is the best option. I have no idea when "cache_name" is not going to be known and do not think we need to support this case at all. My suggestion is to drop the cache_id use case altogether.
Also I am really surprised that we do not have a cache abstraction in python and need to pass cache name and connection into every method. To be honest, this smells really bad that such a popular modern language like Python forces us to have such a clumsy API. Can you please take a look at the Redis python clients and see if there is a better way to support this? https://redis.io/clients#python D. On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Dmitry Melnichuk < dmitry.melnic...@nobitlost.com> wrote: > Hi, Ilya! > > I considered this option. Indeed, the code would look cleaner if only one > kind of identifier (preferably the human-readable name) was used. But there > can be a hypothetical situation, when the user is left with hash code only. > (For example, obtained from some other API.) It would be sad to have an > identifier and not be able to use it. > > Now I really think about using hash codes and names interchangeably, so > both > > ``` > cache_put(conn, 'my-cache', value=1, key='a') > ``` > > and > > > ``` > cache_put(conn, my_hash_code, value=1, key='a') > ``` > > will be allowed. > > This will be a minor complication on my side, and quite reasonable one. > > > On 07/26/2018 10:44 PM, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote: > >> Hello! >> >> Why not use cache name as string here, instead of cache_id()? >> >> cache_put(conn, 'my-cache', value=1, key='a') >> >> Regards, >> >>
