That's a good suggestion, especially since the extension has this note "Please note that this is an experimental module and the development/testing still at early stage. Feel free to try it and give us your feedback." I think I'd actually prefer Roman's suggestion.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:55 AM Roman Leventov <leventov...@gmail.com> wrote: > To avoid lingering of Guava for a few more Druid releases in code, the > "guava" config value could just forcibly use caffeine cache, > concurrencyLevel parameter ignored, and appropriate warning messages > logged. There is no harm in this, Caffeine's concurrency is practically > "elastic" and doesn't demand concurrencyLevel. > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 01:13, Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hey JJ, > > > > I think your idea of adding a new option and deprecating "guava" is a > good > > way forward. > > > > Gian > > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 7:50 AM JJ Meyer <jjmey...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I'm planning on contributing for the first time. I'm working on > > > https://github.com/apache/druid/issues/8399. No issues seem to occur > > when > > > replacing guava with caffeine in any of the classes posted in the issue > > > with exception of the class, OnHeapLoadingCache. > > > > > > I wanted to post something here as I believe it will require a config > > > change to use caffeine in this case. ( > > > > > > > > > https://druid.apache.org/docs/latest/development/extensions-core/druid-lookups.html#example-loading-on-heap-guava > > > ). > > > It seems as if guava's `concurrencyLevel` is not a property in > caffeine's > > > cache. Currently there are types `guava` and `mapDb`. To prevent a > config > > > change a third cache type, caffeine, can be added and the guava cache > can > > > be marked as deprecated and potentially removed in some future major > > > release. The configs would be identical to the guava type with > exception > > of > > > `concurrencyLevel` (it will be removed for the caffeine option). > > > > > > What do you all think of this? Is there another solution that is > > preferred? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > JJ > > > > > >
