I'm a bit lost. Maybe we could do an IRC session on the subject to get everyone (ahem me) up to speed.
On 11 août 2011, at 13:51, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > After more feedback about sharding from IRC and the forum [1], I > believe we should bind sharding implementations to indexed types, as > opposing to index names. > Currently a sharding strategy is strongly related to the index, but > configured on the index name and so it will affect all entities using > that same index name: there's no need to enforce this. > > This also means we could change the sharding strategy interface to: > a - deal with Entity instances instead of org.apache.lucene.Document > and string-encoded ids > b - be a typesafe interface using generics > > This would affect configuration: instead of configuring them on the > index name, an annotation should be placed on the type (or an optional > parameter for existing @Indexed). > > So we won't be able to figure out in how many shards an index is > divided at boot time (unless we ask the sharding strategy via a new > method for this purpose), but this is good provided we finally support > dynamic sharding: start IndexManagers on demand as needed. > > Configuration should have been reworked anyway, as it currently > supports only numbers as sub-indexes identifiers. > > On top of a greater flexibility in sharding, but will also avoid > exposing the o.a.l.Document yet in another API. Not last, I've seen > cases in which people where forced to encode some token in the > Document only for the sake of their sharding strategy decision logic. > > Sanne > > 1 - https://forum.hibernate.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1011836 > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
