No, no... good question. I just think it would be wiser if users created a single, CompositeKey class type, with properly implements equals and hashCode methods, as I pointed out.
I don't see any advantage in using a java.util.Collection as a key over implementing a CompositeKey type. As such, anything we can do to discourage users from using Collection types as a key, I think is a good thing. On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Jason Huynh <jhu...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Yeah I am not sure if anyone does it,and I don't think it would be a good > idea to use a collection as a key but just thought I'd ask the question... > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:33 PM John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > For instance, this came up recently... > > > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46551278/gemfire- > composite-key-pojo-as-gemfire-key > > > > I have seen other similar posts too! > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:30 PM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > > Does anyone actually do this in practice? If so, yikes! > > > > > > Even if the List is immutable, the elements may not be, so using a List > > as > > > a key starts to open 1 up to a lot of problems. > > > > > > As others have pointed out in SO and other channels, information should > > > not be kept in the key. > > > > > > It is perfect fine to have a "Composite" Key, but then define a > > > CompositeKey class type with properly implemented equals(:Object) and > > > hashCode():int methods. > > > > > > For the most part, Keys should really only ever be simple Scalar values > > > (e.g. Long, String, etc). > > > > > > -j > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Jason Huynh <jhu...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > > > >> I started work on the following plan: > > >> - deprecate current "ALL_KEYS" and List passing behavior in > > >> registerInterest > > >> () > > >> - add registerInterestForAllKeys(); > > >> - add registerInterest(T... keys) > > >> - add registerInterest(Iterable<T>keys) > > >> > > >> I might be missing something here but: > > >> With the addition of registerInterest(Iterable<T> keys), I think we > > would > > >> not be able to register interest a List as the key itself. A list > would > > >> be > > >> iterated over due to the addition of registerInterest(Iterable<T> > keys). > > >> A > > >> list in a list would be passed into registerInterest and again be > > iterated > > >> over. I could change the newly created registerInterest call and > > >> explicitly name it something else or are we ok with Iterables not > being > > >> able to be registered as individual keys. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:05 AM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> > John's approach looks best for when you need to specify keys. > > >> > > > >> > For ALL_KEYS, what about an API that doesn't require a token or all > > >> keys: > > >> > > > >> > public void registerInterestForAllKeys(); > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Jason Huynh <jhu...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks John for the clarification! > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:12 PM John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > This... > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The Iterable version would handle any collection type by > having > > >> the > > >> > > user > > >> > > > pass > > >> > > > in the iterator for the collection. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Is not correct. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The Collection<E> interface itself "extends" the > > >> java.lang.Iterable<E> > > >> > > > interface (see here... > > >> > > > > > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/Collection.html > > >> > > under > > >> > > > "*All > > >> > > > Superinterfaces*"). > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Therefore a user can simply to this... > > >> > > > > > >> > > > *List*<KeyType> keys = ... > > >> > > > > > >> > > > region.registerInterest(keys); *// calls the > > >> > > > Region.registerInterest(:Iterable<T>) method.* > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Alternatively, this would also be allowed... > > >> > > > > > >> > > > *Set*<KeyType> keys = ... > > >> > > > > > >> > > > region.registerInterest(keys); > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Jason Huynh < > jhu...@pivotal.io> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Current idea is to: > > >> > > > > - deprecate current "ALL_KEYS" and List passing behavior in > > >> > > > > registerInterest() > > >> > > > > - add registerInterestAllKeys(); > > >> > > > > - add registerInterest(T... keys) and > > registerInterest(Iterable<T> > > >> > > keys) > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > not have one specifically for List or specific collections. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > The Iterable version would handle any collection type by > having > > >> the > > >> > > user > > >> > > > > pass in the iterator for the collection. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:32 AM Jacob Barrett < > > >> jbarr...@pivotal.io> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I am failing to see where registerInterest(List<T> keys) is > an > > >> > issue > > >> > > > for > > >> > > > > > the key type in the region. If our region is Region<String> > > >> then I > > >> > > > would > > >> > > > > > expect registerInterest(List<String>). If the keys are > unknown > > >> or a > > >> > > mix > > >> > > > > > then you should have Region<Object> and thus > > >> > > > > registerInterest(List<Object). > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I echo John's statements on VarArgs and type erasure as well > > as > > >> his > > >> > > > > > argument for Iterable<T>. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Also, List<T> does not restrict you from List indexes. The > > >> region > > >> > > would > > >> > > > > be > > >> > > > > > Region<List<String>> with registerInterest<List<List<Str > > >> ing>>(). > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > -Jake > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:04 AM John Blum < > jb...@pivotal.io> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Personally, I prefer the var args method > > >> (registerInterest(T... > > >> > > > keys)) > > >> > > > > > > myself. It is way more convenient if I only have a few > keys > > >> when > > >> > > > > calling > > >> > > > > > > this method then to have to add the keys to a List, > > especially > > >> > for > > >> > > > > > testing > > >> > > > > > > purposes. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But, I typically like to pair that with a > > >> > > > registerInterest(Iterable<T> > > >> > > > > > > keys) method > > >> > > > > > > as well. By having a overloaded Iterable variant, then I > > can > > >> > pass > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > any > > >> > > > > > > Collection type I want (which shouldn't be restricted to > > just > > >> > > List). > > >> > > > > It > > >> > > > > > > also is a simple matter to convert any *Collection* (i.e. > > >> *List*, > > >> > > > > *Set*, > > >> > > > > > > etc) to an array, which can be passed to the var args > > >> method. By > > >> > > > using > > >> > > > > > > List, > > >> > > > > > > you are implying that "order matters" since a List is a > > order > > >> > > > > collection > > >> > > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > elements. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > This ("*It might even cause problems of pushing in > > **multiple > > >> > > > different > > >> > > > > > > types.*"), regarding var args, does not even make sense. > > >> > > Technically, > > >> > > > > > > List<T> is no different. Java's type erasure essentially > > >> equates > > >> > > var > > >> > > > > > args > > >> > > > > > > too "Object..." (or Object[]) and the List<T> to List (or > a > > >> List > > >> > of > > >> > > > > > > Objects, > > >> > > > > > > essentially like if you just did this... List<Object>) So, > > >> while > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > > compiler ensures compile-time type-safety of generics, > there > > >> is > > >> > no > > >> > > > > > generics > > >> > > > > > > type-safety guarantees at runtime. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Jason Huynh < > > >> jhu...@pivotal.io> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The current support for List leads to compilation issues > > if > > >> the > > >> > > > > region > > >> > > > > > is > > >> > > > > > > > type constrained. However I think you are suggesting > > >> instead > > >> > of > > >> > > a > > >> > > > > var > > >> > > > > > > args > > >> > > > > > > > method, instead provide a registerInterest(List keys) > > >> method? > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > So far what I am hearing requested is: > > >> > > > > > > > deprecate current "ALL_KEYS" and List passing behavior > > >> > > > > > > > registerInterestAllKeys(); > > >> > > > > > > > registerInterest(List<T> keys) instead of a > > >> > registerInterest(T... > > >> > > > > keys) > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Will anyone ever actually have a List as the key itself? > > The > > >> > > > current > > >> > > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > > suggested changes would not allow it registering for a > > >> specific > > >> > > > List > > >> > > > > > > > object. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:50 PM Jacob Barrett < > > >> > > jbarr...@pivotal.io > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Geode Native C++ and .NET have: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > virtual void registerKeys(const > > >> > > > > > > > > std::vector<std::shared_ptr<CacheableKey>> & keys, > > >> > > > > > > > > bool isDurable = false, > > >> > > > > > > > > bool getInitialValues = > > false, > > >> > > > > > > > > bool receiveValues = > true) = > > >> 0; > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > virtual void unregisterKeys(const > > >> > > > > > > > > std::vector<std::shared_ptr<CacheableKey>> & keys) = > 0; > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > virtual void *registerAllKeys*(bool isDurable = > false, > > >> > > > > > > > > bool getInitialValues = > > >> false, > > >> > > > > > > > > bool receiveValues = > > true) > > >> = > > >> > 0; > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > virtual void unregisterAllKeys() = 0; > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > virtual void registerRegex(const std::string& regex, > > >> > > > > > > > > bool isDurable = false, > > >> > > > > > > > > bool getInitialValues = > > >> false, > > >> > > > > > > > > bool receiveValues = > true) > > = > > >> 0; > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > virtual void unregisterRegex(const char* regex) = 0; > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I dislike special values like this so yes please make > it > > >> go > > >> > > away! > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -Jake > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:20 PM Dan Smith < > > >> dsm...@pivotal.io > > >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I don't really like the regex option - it implies > that > > >> your > > >> > > > keys > > >> > > > > > are > > >> > > > > > > > all > > >> > > > > > > > > > strings. Will any other regular expressions work on > > non > > >> > > string > > >> > > > > > > objects? > > >> > > > > > > > > > registerInterestAllKeys() seems like a better > option. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -Dan > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Michael Stolz < > > >> > > > > mst...@pivotal.io> > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I don't like the vararg option. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > If i'm maintaining a list of keys i'm interested > > in, I > > >> > want > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > able > > >> > > > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > > > pass that List in. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Varargs is a poor substitute. It might even cause > > >> > problems > > >> > > of > > >> > > > > > > pushing > > >> > > > > > > > > in > > >> > > > > > > > > > > multiple different types. Keys must all be of one > > type > > >> > for > > >> > > a > > >> > > > > > given > > >> > > > > > > > > > Region. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I'm very much in favor of deprecating the ALL_KEYS > > >> string > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > > favor > > >> > > > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > > > > > something that is typed specially if you refer to > > >> > ALL_KEYS. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > If that works, then we don't necessarily need the > > >> > > additional > > >> > > > > API > > >> > > > > > > > > > > registerInterestAllKeys(). But if ALL_KEYS can't > be > > a > > >> > > special > > >> > > > > > type > > >> > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > get > > >> > > > > > > > > > > over the compilation issues then we should go with > > the > > >> > new > > >> > > > API. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Mike Stolz > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Lead > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 <(631)%20835-4771> > > <(631)%20835-4771> > > >> > <(631)%20835-4771> > > >> > > > <(631)%20835-4771> <(631)%20835-4771> > > >> > > > > > <(631)%20835-4771> > > >> > > > > > > <(631)%20835-4771> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Anilkumar > Gingade < > > >> > > > > > > > > aging...@pivotal.io> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 Deprecating ALL_KEYS option; I believe this > is > > >> added > > >> > > > > before > > >> > > > > > we > > >> > > > > > > > > > > supported > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > regex support. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't seems like a new API is needed. The > regex > > >> java > > >> > > doc > > >> > > > > > > clearly > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > specifies the effect of ".*". > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for deprecating list argument; and replacing > > with > > >> > new > > >> > > > API. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -Anil. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Jason Huynh < > > >> > > > > > jhu...@pivotal.io> > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > For GEODE-3813 < > > >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3813 > > >> > > > > > > > >: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Region > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > registerInterest API usage of type parameters > is > > >> > broken > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > < > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3813 > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > The current API to registerInterest allows a > > >> special > > >> > > > string > > >> > > > > > > token > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > “ALL_KEYS” to be passed in as the parameter to > > >> > > > > > > registerInterest(T > > >> > > > > > > > > > key). > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > This special token causes the registerInterest > > to > > >> > > behave > > >> > > > > > > similar > > >> > > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > registerInterestRegex(“.*”). As the ticket > > >> states, > > >> > if > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > > region > > >> > > > > > > > > has > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > been > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > typed to anything other than Object or String, > > the > > >> > > usage > > >> > > > of > > >> > > > > > > > > > “ALL_KEYS” > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as a > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > parameter results in a compilation error. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposals: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to deprecate the special string > > >> > “ALL_KEYS” > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > > > > > > document > > >> > > > > > > > > > a > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround of using > registerInterestRegex(“.*”) > > >> or we > > >> > > can > > >> > > > > > add a > > >> > > > > > > > new > > >> > > > > > > > > > API > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > called registerInterestAllKeys() > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should also deprecate passing a > List > > >> > Object > > >> > > of > > >> > > > > > keys > > >> > > > > > > > into > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > registerInterest. It has the same compilation > > >> > > > restrictions > > >> > > > > > as > > >> > > > > > > > > > > “ALL_KEYS” > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > when the region is key constrained/typed. The > > >> reason > > >> > > why > > >> > > > > > List > > >> > > > > > > > > would > > >> > > > > > > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > used is to allow registering multiple keys at > > >> once. > > >> > > > > Instead, > > >> > > > > > > we > > >> > > > > > > > > can > > >> > > > > > > > > > > add > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > new var arg API like registerInterest(T… > keys). > > >> This > > >> > > > > problem > > >> > > > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > solution > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > was also documented in the ticket by the > ticket > > >> > creator > > >> > > > > (Kirk > > >> > > > > > > > Lund) > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jason > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -- > > >> > > > > > > -John > > >> > > > > > > john.blum10101 (skype) > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > -John > > >> > > > john.blum10101 (skype) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -John > > > john.blum10101 (skype) > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -John > > john.blum10101 (skype) > > > -- -John john.blum10101 (skype)
