Yes, what you describe is exactly the hybrid approach I suggested. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:52 PM Vlad Mihalcea <mihalcea.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The short name approach sounds goid and would accommodate any future cache > region implementation changes. > > For 5.3, I'd say we allow the old named to be resolved to the new ones, > like symbolic links. > > This will allow users to migrate to 5.3 without changing existing > ehcache.xml configs. > > We could write a log WARN for 5.3 and stop supporting old region names in > 6.x. > > Vlad > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, 23:00 Steve Ebersole, <st...@hibernate.org> wrote: > >> Changing the name of the default query results cache I can see being a >> problem in retrospect. That is something the user might want to >> configure. >> >> I am much less convinced about the update-timestamps cache. I guess it >> would depend on what they are configuring. >> >> Overall what I would suggest is a hybrid approach where we move to a >> "short >> name" solution much like we have for most other config values. So, e.g., >> the name of the default query result region would be >> `default-query-result-region`. We could then have the providers >> understand >> that "magic value" and have them look for configs under either names they >> wish (temporarily which Emmanuel suggested, if that's what we want) - we'd >> change our OOTB providers to look for all three names. >> >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:12 AM Guillaume Smet <guillaume.s...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > So following our off-list discussions , I wanted to share a document we >> > wrote with Yoann with some details about the usability/compatibility of >> the >> > new cache implementation in 5.3: >> > >> > >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xmsWlYOkXeAnZlEjcxFy6SUitxmT1JywoDyX22TrvE/edit?usp=sharing >> > >> > (The document should be public and everyone should be able to comment) >> > >> > We tried to be as detailed as possible. What we need to decide is in >> > bold/red as Actions. >> > >> > The idea is to act on it for 5.3.2 so before Thursday. The PR for the >> first >> > issue is mostly ready but will require some tuning depending on our >> > decisions, we still need to work on the second one depending on the >> > outcome. >> > >> > Everyone interested/concerned, please step in so that we can reach a >> > consensus quickly and merge what is appropriate. >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > -- >> > Guillaume >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
