The Region separator should not be user visible. In the past, we had tried
to remove needing this from the end-user or any other place. If we look
into its usage, it is mostly for sub-regions and we don't recommend much
use of this.
I was also wondering, its use by external or management modules have to
know about it; they just have to pass in what the user has provided or
typed in.

-Anil.



On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:16 AM Udo Kohlmeyer <u...@vmware.com> wrote:

> I was wondering. Why do we require to add this Region.SEPERATOR to be
> anywhere outside of Region.
>
> Geode-management was purposefully designed NOT to have a dependency on
> core. Creating a new dependency on a donor module, just means that
> management module will now start knowing about geode.
>
> I suggest if you want to make sure that management also uses a common
> Region.SEPARATOR, then maybe create a class inside of management for now OR
> we have to look at management to better understand WHY it requires this
> knowledge and if there could not be a different implementation to avoid
> creating a new donor project.
>
> The whole idea behind modularity is that modules don't expose their
> internals. The Region Separator is REGION specific. That knowledge should
> be kept there. It should not be proliferated around or moved into a
> "common" module, just because there is a leak.
>
> @Donal you are closest to the code, but would it maybe not make more sense
> to just define that constant and maybe raise a JIRA so that we can address
> this "leakage" at a later stage?
>
> --Udo
> ________________________________
> From: Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io>
> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 11:02 PM
> To: dev@geode.apache.org <dev@geode.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Move definition of Region separator character to
> geode-common
>
> Probably. Unfortunately we haven’t been very good and cleaning these up
> and moving forward with a Java modules plan. It’s gunna bite us.
>
> > On May 16, 2020, at 8:08 PM, Donal Evans <doev...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > In that case, would it also make sense to move the existing
> GeodeGlossary
> > class to org.apache.geode.common.internal, from its current location in
> > org.apache.geode.util.internal?
> >
> >> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 8:02 PM Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am fine as long as you make sure you use a package name that is going
> to
> >> be Java 9 modules safe. Two modules cannot export the same package. So
> if
> >> geode-commons is going to export org.apache.geode.util I think we will
> have
> >> collisions. I suggest org.apache.geode.common.
> >>
> >> -Jake
> >>
> >>
> >>>> On May 16, 2020, at 1:23 PM, Donal Evans <doev...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I've recently been working on a little side project to replace every
> use
> >> of
> >>> a hardcoded "/" character in region names/paths with a reference to the
> >>> Region.SEPARATOR constant. I ran into some problems though, since the
> >>> geode-management module needs to know about the separator character (in
> >> the
> >>> Region and Index classes) but does not have a dependency on geode-core,
> >>> where the character is currently defined.
> >>>
> >>> Since the whole point of the exercise is to attempt to provide a single
> >>> place where the region separator character is defined, pulling the
> >>> definition down into a module upon which both geode-core and
> >>> geode-management depend seems like the sensible choice, so I'm
> proposing
> >> to
> >>> create a GeodePublicGlossary class (name entirely up for change) in the
> >>> geode-common/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/util/ package, moving the
> >>> definition there, then deprecating the definitions in the Region
> >> interface
> >>> in geode-core.
> >>>
> >>> To preempt a possible question, there already exists a GeodeGlossary
> >> class
> >>> (which defines the GEMFIRE_PREFIX constant), but it's in an internal
> >>> package, so isn't a suitable place to move the definition of the
> >> currently
> >>> user-visible region separator character.
> >>>
> >>> Any feedback or suggestions on this idea would be very welcome.
> >>
> >>
>

Reply via email to