1. Here is a ticket since we’re on the same page: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6242 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6242> 2. Ok, let’s wait for a while. Predicting that this will be supported on day due to users’ feedback :)
— Denis > On Aug 31, 2017, at 12:49 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1) *At least*.- I am ok, makes sense > 2) *Ideally* - strong no. Product should not have subtle behavior without a > strong reason. I do not see justification for this change. > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I think Denis' idea makes sense. >> >> Vladimir, what do you think? >> >> D. >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Denis Magda <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Igniters, >>> >>> That’s one more feedback about CREATE TABLE usage in practice. >>> >>> The command automatically creates an IgniteCache naming it >>> SQL_PUBLIC_{TABLE}. So, if a Person table is created you’ll have >>> SQL_PUBLIC_PERSON cache in the cluster. >>> >>> Honestly, if you keep to SQL APIs the cache name won’t bother you but as >>> soon as key-value, compute, service grid APIs are needed the cache name >>> will be used here and there looking bizarre. >>> >>> Let me propose the following usability improvements until our user does >>> this: >>> >>> - *At least* >>> Give a way to pass the cache name into WITH clause parameters set >>> >>> - *Ideally* >>> Support the above and if the cache already exists use it instead of >>> creating a new one. This might help to resolve another issue brought up >>> here: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ >>> CREATE-TABLE-usage-from-Java-API-NET-C-td21455.html >>> >>> What do you think? If everyone is ok, I’ll file a JIRA ticket. >>> >>> — >>> Denis >> >> >>
