We could just hard coded the default in the DataStore implementation. This should not be changed via properties value I believe.
- Henry On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Apostolis Giannakidis < ap.giannaki...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure, > but based on which value will we set the parameter? It should be a > datastore specific value; i.e. each data store should set its own value for > this parameter. This is why I proposed to put it in the gora.properties > file, as this will be configurable for each data store. This will serve as > the default case of the range. > Additionally, we can provide extended API methods (as Renato suggested) > that accept an extra argument that will override the default case. What do > you think? > > Apos > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Renato Marroquín Mogrovejo < > renatoj.marroq...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > We'd have to set the new parameter before we start that specific test. > Does > > it make sense? > > > > > > Renato M. > > > > > > 2013/8/22 Apostolis Giannakidis <ap.giannaki...@gmail.com> > > > > > Oracle can have both inclusive and exclusive ranges. > > > However, I still have not understood how the test cast will work, if we > > > follow Renato's suggestion to add another parameter to the API method. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Apos > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Henry Saputra < > henry.sapu...@gmail.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > Looks like HBase is the one exception? Oracle and Accumulo seem to be > > > > inclusive, and I believe Cassandra also inclusive. > > > > > > > > In the DataStoreTestUtil, we could probably check the type of data > > store > > > > before executing the delete to pass the right flag. > > > > > > > > - Henry > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Renato Marroquín Mogrovejo < > > > > renatoj.marroq...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > @Henry, you are right mate (: > > > > > @Apos, you are right as well mate (: but IMHO we could set this > value > > > > with > > > > > a default value (the one that most data stores use) and run the > tests > > > > like > > > > > this i.e. modifying the tests to make this run well, maybe we could > > > even > > > > > set this new parameter when starting the test so it runs smoothly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Renato M. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/8/22 Apostolis Giannakidis <ap.giannaki...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
