----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40106/#review106023 -----------------------------------------------------------
samza-kv/src/test/scala/org/apache/samza/storage/kv/TestCachedStore.scala (line 37) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/40106/#comment164729> question: so, here by preserving the old behavior for array keys, the end result is that the array keys would be immediately flushed out to the store as they are today, right? Wouldn't it be nicer to fix the CachedStore's cache hit issue w/ array keys s.t. array keys and other primitive type of keys behave the same? - Yi Pan (Data Infrastructure) On Nov. 9, 2015, 9:30 p.m., Tommy Becker wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/40106/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 9, 2015, 9:30 p.m.) > > > Review request for samza. > > > Bugs: SAMZA-812 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SAMZA-812 > > > Repository: samza > > > Description > ------- > > Fix for SAMZA-812. Only flush CachedStore when necessary, with the exception > that this preserves the buggy flush behavior for array keys. Otherwise the > store will not behave properly for array keys due to the mismatch between the > reference semantics of the cache vs the value semantics of the store. See the > bug for details. > > > Diffs > ----- > > samza-kv/src/main/scala/org/apache/samza/storage/kv/CachedStore.scala > 1112350 > samza-kv/src/test/scala/org/apache/samza/storage/kv/TestCachedStore.scala > cc9c9f3 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40106/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Unit tested > > > Thanks, > > Tommy Becker > >
