Hi Alex, Do you know if there is any particular reason why we introduced the ClientException in the first place? Generally, I believe that consistency is a good thing, but there might be something that we're missing.
-Val On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 2:33 AM Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, Igniters! > > Since we touched on the subject of consistency across thin/thick APIs in > thread [1] I would like to continue the discussion here. > > Currently, thick and thin APIs look similar but have no common parents. A > set of ClientCache methods is almost a subset of IgniteCache methods, but > these interfaces are fully independent. So we can't build common > abstraction which can work with ClientCache and IgniteCache without code > duplication. For example, we have ignite-spring-data module, to make it > thin-client compliant we should copy-paste all cache methods invocations. > > It's impossible to make thin and thick interfaces absolutely identical and > we can't extend one from another since there thick and thin specific > methods needed, but we can move common methods to the parent interface. But > here is another problem: exceptions. Thick methods declared as throwing > IgniteException and IgniteCheckedException, but all thin-client interfaces > use ClientException. Without common exceptions for thin and thick clients, > we can't build common parent interface. > > Currently, only a small amount of thick interfaces can be fully reused by > thin-client (Queries, IgniteBinary, ClusterNode) > > Also, I would like to discuss JCache support by thin-client. We already use > some of JCache specification for thin-client, but not fully support JCache. > For example, we use Cache.Entry for queries and JCache expiration policies > in public thin-client API (also, some of JCache interfaces are used by the > internal implementation). > > I've tried to implement POC for continuous queries for java thin client, > but without JCache support API looks weird. On the one hand, we should use > CacheEntryEventFilter (JCache interface) since it's required by the > server-side, on the other hand, we can't use CacheEntryUpdatedListener > since it requires CacheEntryEvent which requires an instance of Cache > (JCache interface), which doesn't exist on the thin-client side. > > We have plans to change public API in Ignite 3.0, perhaps it makes sense to > make thick and thin API consistent. WDYT? > What about JCache support by thin-client in Ignite 3.0? > Please, share your thoughts. > > [1]: > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html >
