Having different policies for persistent and non-persistent caches sounds like a bad idea for me, because there could be troubles should user try to switch to persistent mode. It would require code changes.
Can we just escape all non-latin symbols (e.g. using base64), while leaving the rest as is? With this approach in most cases cache name will remain the same, and only multibyte characters would be affected. On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Agree with Stan and Vladimir. > > We should not impose any restrictions on cache names, some users may have > > issues with that. > > > > Using cache names as file names is internal implementation detail. > > We can use cache id or some kind of encoding (base64, etc) to avoid file > > system issues. > > > > > Pavel, I disagree. I want to look at the file system and be able to clearly > tell which folder belongs to which cache. If you use encryption or some > other encoding, this would be impossible. > > I doubt that introducing cache name validation for *persistent* caches > would affect any existing users. It sounds like for non-persistent caches > the validation is not needed, right? > > D. >
