Warning is OK, but removing null name after having it for almost 2 years is a bad idea. People are using it and will be forced to change their code for no good reason.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <[email protected] > wrote: > We can add an explicit warning in 1.x when a cache with the null name is > used and remove it in 2.0. > > 2016-06-01 15:49 GMT-07:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]>: > > > -1 > > > > I don’t think this will give us any advantage other than many frustrated > > users who will need to change their code. We should definitely discourage > > using nulls though. > > > > D. > > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > I would also restrict nulls for node names, for IGFS names, etc.. > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, All! > > > > > > > > In ignite-1.x cache.name could be null. > > > > > > > > And we have to write a lot of code to handle such name, especially in > > > tools > > > > like web console and Visor. > > > > > > > > In ignite 2.0 we could change API and make cache.name not null. > > > > > > > > What do you think about such change? > > > > > > > > It is worth to create such issue in JIRA? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov > > > > GridGain Systems > > > > www.gridgain.com > > > > > > > > > >
