Unique suffix is a good idea.
Sergi
2017-06-06 13:51 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:
> Igniters,
>
> In the very first implementation of CREATE TABLE we applied the following
> rule to key and value type names:
> keyTypeName == tableName + "Key"
> valTypeName == tableName
>
> E.g.:
> CREATE TABLE Person ...
> keyTypeName == PERSONKey
> valTypeName == PERSON
>
> After that user could potentially create objects with these type names
> manually and add them to cache through native Ignite API:
>
> BinaryObject key = IgniteBinary.builder("PERSONKey").addField().build();
> BinaryObject val = IgniteBinary.builder("PERSON").addField().build();
> IgniteCache.put(key, val);
>
> This approach has two problems:
> 1) Type names are not unique between different tables. it means that if two
> tables with the same name are created in different schemas, we got a
> conflict.
> 2) Type names are bound to binary metadata, so if user decides to do the
> following, he will receive and error about incompatible metadata:
> CREATE TABLE Person (id INT PRIMARY KEY);
> DROP TABLE Person;
> CREATE TABLE Person(in BIGINT PRIMARY KEY); // Fail because old meta still
> has type "Integer".
>
> In order to avoid that I am going to add unique suffix or so (say, UUID) to
> type names. This way there will be no human-readable type names any more,
> but there will be no conflicts either. In future releases we will relax
> this somehow.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Vladimir.
>
