-1 for introducing this change as well.

Also -1 for introducing any additional constants/workarounds.  Either fix
it the way it should be fixed or do nothing at all.

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> -1 at this point I'm against making this change for 1.0.0
>
> I'll still work towards fixing GEODE-1466 properly but it'll be fixed on
> develop within the next week or so.
>
> -Kirk
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlme...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > If such a change is to be introduced.. maybe we call it `SYSTEM_PREFIX`
> or
> > something more generic that we could use within the Geode.
> >
> > Then we could hopefully cover many to most `gemfire` vs `geode` renaming.
> >
> > But I agree with @Anthony, if we aren't 100% certain about a change then
> > we should hold off until the next release. There is always tomorrow. :D
> >
> > --Udo
> >
> >
> >
> > On 14/10/16 8:05 am, Swapnil Bawaskar wrote:
> >
> >> How about introducing a new GEMFIRE_FILE_PREFIX attribute that will
> >> default
> >> to "geode" while leaving GEMFIRE_PREFIX default to "gemfire"? Is this
> >> something that will work?
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hmmm, you would think it would be easier to change a file name :-)
> >>>
> >>> I don’t think we should be pushing destabilizing changes into a release
> >>> branch.  If the changes aren’t ready now we always pick them up for the
> >>> next release.
> >>>
> >>> Anthony
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm currently working with Jared and we have spent a few days working
> >>>> on GEODE-1466. We've been trying to get geode to the point where it
> can
> >>>> automatically search for, find and use either geode.properties or
> >>>> gemfire.properties (preferring geode.properties if both are found).
> >>>>
> >>>> We were intending to break this up into three subtasks with the hope
> of
> >>>> including #1 in Geode 1.0.0 incubating:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) locating geode.properties and gemfire.properties if user has not
> >>>> specified a specific properties file
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) support specifying geode configuration properties with system
> >>>>
> >>> properties
> >>>
> >>>> geode.<property-name> as well as gemfire.<property-name>
> >>>>
> >>>> ex: -Dgemfire.off-heap-memory-size=40g or
> -Dgeode.off-heap-memory-size=
> >>>>
> >>> 40g
> >>>
> >>>> 3) modify all other system properties in geode to support alias of
> >>>>
> >>> gemfire
> >>>
> >>>> as well as geode where the name of the system property currently
> >>>> contains
> >>>> gemfire
> >>>>
> >>>> ex: -Dgemfire.Query.VERBOSE=true or -Dgeode.Query.VERBOSE=true
> >>>>
> >>>> The community is planning to create the Geode 1.0.0 incubating RC
> >>>>
> >>> tomorrow.
> >>>
> >>>> The work we have completed so far involves modifying geode to search
> for
> >>>> both geode.properties and gemfire.properties to use whichever one is
> >>>>
> >>> found.
> >>>
> >>>> This turns out to be too complex to complete by tomorrow (send me a
> >>>> email
> >>>> directly if you want more detailed info which mostly involves
> >>>> DistributionConfig and ConfigSource).
> >>>>
> >>>> In order to complete this in time, we need to use a different
> strategy.
> >>>> Instead of looking for geode.properties first and then
> >>>>
> >>> gemfire.properties,
> >>>
> >>>> we are proposing the following change to DistributionConfig:
> >>>>
> >>>> Change the GEMFIRE_PREFIX = "gemfire." constant to be configurable by
> a
> >>>> system property and change the default to be "geode." This places a
> >>>>
> >>> greater
> >>>
> >>>> burden on the user who is migrating from GemFire to Geode but doesn't
> >>>>
> >>> want
> >>>
> >>>> to rename gemfire.properties or gemfire system properties. By default,
> >>>> Geode would search for geode.properties unless the user specifies a
> new
> >>>> system property with a different prefix ("gemfire."):
> >>>>
> >>>> String GEMFIRE_PREFIX = PropertiesPrefix.getGemfireOrGeodePrefix();
> >>>>
> >>>> Example of overriding this to be "gemfire.":
> >>>>
> >>>> -DgeodePropertiesPrefix="gemfire."
> >>>> or
> >>>> -DgeodePropertiesPrefix="gemfire"
> >>>>
> >>>> (we'll add the "." for you if you leave it out)
> >>>>
> >>>> Pivotal or other vendors could also alter this prefix as they see fit.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are 453 lines of production code that refer to this
> GEMFIRE_PREFIX
> >>>> constant. For example, every system property that contains "gemfire."
> is
> >>>> currently referring to the constant, so they would also be altered to
> be
> >>>> "geode." by default. The JMX notifications also refer to
> GEMFIRE_PREFIX
> >>>> such as: GEMFIRE_PREFIX + "distributedsystem.cache.client.joined".
> >>>>
> >>>> Does anyone know if anything referring to GEMFIRE_PREFIX is persisted
> in
> >>>> some way that would break if we make this change? For example, if we
> >>>> persist any strings built with this constant to a diskstore, then
> >>>>
> >>> recovery
> >>>
> >>>> from that diskstore would be broken if the prefix value is "geode."
> >>>>
> >>> during
> >>>
> >>>> recovery of an old diskstore.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, a user could conceivably override the GEMFIRE_PREFIX in some
> >>>>
> >>> members
> >>>
> >>>> of a cluster but not others which could break things in unexpected
> ways.
> >>>>
> >>>> One more note: While reviewing uses of GEMFIRE_PREFIX we noticed that
> >>>> AgentUtil supports "GEMFIRE" (hardcoded) and GEMFIRE_PREFIX+".home"
> env
> >>>> vars while all of the online docs specify setting GEMFIRE_HOME as an
> env
> >>>> var. I suspect this is already broken (I will file a ticket), but I
> >>>> think
> >>>> we will also be at risk of breaking additional things that may or may
> >>>> not
> >>>> be immediately detected by precheckin tests. It's also used by
> >>>>
> >>> DtdResolver
> >>>
> >>>> for the name of a dtd: new File(GEMFIRE_PREFIX + "dtd). We'll continue
> >>>> looking for unusual or risky uses of the constant.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bottom line is making this change is higher risk than not making the
> >>>> change, and there could be some fallout bugs that require fixes and
> >>>> additional release candidates for 1.0.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does the community feel this change is desirable for 1.0.0? Or is it
> >>>>
> >>> better
> >>>
> >>>> to leave it as "gemfire." and move GEODE-1466 to post-1.0.0?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Kirk
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>



-- 
-John
503-504-8657
john.blum10101 (skype)

Reply via email to