On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Ilya Lantukh <ilant...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> Anton, > > Please do not use term "atomic cache" for system caches that hold internal > data for atomic data structures. This is very confusing. > > You are right, currently there is no logic that will validate cache > configuration. It definitely should be fixed. And having configuration > parameters encoded in cache name, like it is currently implemented for > collections, is one of the most straightforward approaches. > Anton, I am completely confused now. Does Ignite validate the configuration for the atomic caches (not atomic data structures)?
