Dmitriy, Igor, Ilya, Sergey!
Thank you for sharing your ideas, concerns and criticism with me. I do
appreciate it.
I already made some changes in my API, influenced by your feedback. I
also plan to add a certain set of features, that will make my UX closer
to what you can see from other Ignite clients.
I stopped using `hashcode` in my examples. Integer cache IDs and cache
names now can be used interchangeably, with primary focus on cache names.
I will add a Cache class as a primary interface for cache operations, so
that earlier examples:
```
conn = Connection()
conn.connect('127.0.0.1', 10800)
cache_create(conn, 'my cache')
cache_put(conn, 'my cache', 'my key', 42)
result = my_cache.get('my key')
cache_destroy(conn, 'my cache')
conn.close()
```
could be reiterated as:
```
conn = Connection()
conn.connect('127.0.0.1', 10800)
my_cache = conn.create_cache('my cache')
my_cache.put('my key', 42)
result = my_cache.get('my key')
my_cache.destroy('my cache')
conn.close()
```
I will also make `Connection.connect()` accept any iterable (including
simple list) as a connection parameter. I will provide user with some
basic connection generators instead of what is done in my current
connection failover example.
On 07/27/2018 07:41 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
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.
