Yes...Jason, thanks for correction...

[corrected]
I will wait for other feedbacks/comments, if there is no objection i
will change
it to "forwardExpirationDestroy" with default value set to false.

-Anil.



On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Jason Huynh <jhu...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> *I will wait for other feedbacks/comments, if there is no objection i
> willchange it to "forwardExpirationDestroy" with default value set to
> true.*
>
> think you meant to say default value to set false :-)
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Anilkumar Gingade <aging...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Darrel...
> >
> > The name change was based on the review comments:
> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/46243/
> >
> > I am fine with either one, ignoreXXX or forwardXXX.
> >
> > I will wait for other feedbacks/comments, if there is no objection i will
> > change it to "forwardExpirationDestroy" with default value set to true.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Anil.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Darrel Schneider <dschnei...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > When did forwardXXX become ignoreXXX? I read through the email thread
> and
> > > couldn't find why that happened. It is best for the default on a
> boolean
> > > property to be false. That was the case when it was forwardXXX. But now
> > > that it has changed to ignoreXXX the default has become true. I'd vote
> > for
> > > it being named something whose default can be false.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Anilkumar Gingade <
> aging...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Team,
> > > >
> > > > As proposed here, we added support to propagate eviction and
> expiration
> > > > (destroy) operation to AsyncEventQueue using single flag/attribute
> > > > "ignoreEvictionAndExpiration" by default which is true (to keep the
> > same
> > > > behavior) and one could set (false) to receive eviction/expiration
> > > event...
> > > >
> > > > But we come across a product issue, GEODE-1472, that cause data
> > > > inconsistency (with eviction destroy)....For this reason we are
> > planning
> > > to
> > > > break the "ignoreEvictionAndExpiration" attribute to eviction and
> > > > expiration specific:
> > > > "ignoreEvictionDestroy", "ignoreExpirationDestroy"...
> > > >
> > > > Currently we are planning to support "ignoreExpirationDestroy",  and
> > add
> > > > "ignoreEvictionDestroy" once GEODE-1472 is fixed...
> > > >
> > > > Looking for comments on this...
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -Anil.
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-1472
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Anilkumar Gingade <
> > aging...@pivotal.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Kirk, We could not think of any such requirement...And with this
> > > > > application will get all the update operation and can take
> > appropriate
> > > > > action (use or ignore)...
> > > > >
> > > > > -Anil.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Would any user ever have a reason to enable forwarding of one type
> > but
> > > > not
> > > > >> the other? If so then I would separate them as
> > forwardEvictionEvents()
> > > > and
> > > > >> forwardExpirationEvents().
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > +1 for being more explicit with the "And" conjunction
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > -Kirk
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Anthony Baker <
> aba...@pivotal.io
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> I’d prefer to insert a conjunction to clarify the meaning:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> forwardEvictionAndExpirationEvents()
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> $0.02,
> > > > >> >> Anthony
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Apr 12, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Anilkumar Gingade <
> > > aging...@pivotal.io>
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> *New attribute:* "forwardEvictionExpirationEvents()" (Any
> > alternate
> > > > >> >> names?).
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to