Hi Henry, As far as I have understood Renato's proposal, that's correct. But, now that I think of it, if we follow Renato's suggestion, then how will the test case[1] know if it should include the key or not in its checks?
[1] https://github.com/apache/gora/blob/trunk/gora-core/src/test/java/org/apache/gora/store/DataStoreTestUtil.java#L747 On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com>wrote: > HI Renato, > > If the API change include a new parameter to indicate inclusive vs > exclusive then Gora do not have to decide anything and just delegate the > new parameter to the corresponding datastore? > > - Henry > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Renato Marroquín Mogrovejo < > renatoj.marroq...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I think we could just add an extra parameter to the query API, so users > can > > decide programmatically whether they want to use the deletes as inclusive > > or exclusive, and they could do this while programming with Gora's API. > And > > we could decide to use a default value for the option that most data > stores > > support. What do you think? > > > > > > Renato M. > > > > > > 2013/8/18 Apostolis Giannakidis <ap.giannaki...@gmail.com> > > > > > Yes, I can also do both inclusive and exclusive ranges in Oracle NoSQL. > > So > > > it remains to be decided by the Gora API. > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Scott Stults < > > > sstu...@opensourceconnections.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply, Apos. Seeing as how this test is in flux I > won't > > > > worry too much about it now. FWIW, I could do inclusive or exclusive > > > ranges > > > > with Lucene. > > > > > > > > -Scott > > > > > > > > On Aug 17, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Apostolis Giannakidis < > > > > ap.giannaki...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello Scott, > > > > > > > > > > The issue that you just spotted is the same issue that I also > > > > > coincidentally spotted a week ago. > > > > > Keith Turner first identified the issue and documented it in Jira. > > > Please > > > > > see GORA-66. > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GORA-66 > > > > > > > > > > This is also a blocking issue for me, as it does not allow me to > > > complete > > > > > the implementation of deleteByQuery(). Personally, I @Ignored this > > test > > > > > case until GORA-66 is resolved. I saw that the same was done in > > > Accumulo > > > > > datastore. > > > > > > > > > > I hope this helps, > > > > > Apos > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Scott Stults < > > > > > sstu...@opensourceconnections.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> All, > > > > >> > > > > >> I'm having a little trouble getting my head around > deleteByQuery(). > > > The > > > > >> javadoc in the interface indicates that any object that matches > the > > > > query > > > > >> should get deleted. The unit test > > > > >> DataStoreTestUtil.testDeleteByQueryFields() expects the object to > > > still > > > > >> exist with the queried-for fields cleared. To me it seems like the > > > test > > > > is > > > > >> for an update, rather than a delete. > > > > >> > > > > >> Are my semantics all mixed up? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> -Scott > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
