Anton, why do you need to *alter* event sub-system to introduce a new event? Yakov's issue was that you propagated private interface to public API, which is bad of course. Come up with a clean design and it will be accepted.
My problem with TransactionValidator is that it only solves a small problem for transactions. If we do that, then we will have to add cache validators, compute validators, etc, etc, etc. That is why we either should use the existing event subsystem or come up with a holistic design that will work across the whole project. D. On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:38 AM, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org> wrote: > Dmitriy, > > Yakov is against the solution based on event sub-system > >> I think that we should think about some other solution instead of > altering > >> event sub-system. > > Also, I checked is there any chances to fix all the issues found by Yakov > and see that solution becomes overcomplicated in that case. > That's why I'm proposing this lightweight solution. > > As for me it's a good idea to have such validator since that's a common > problem at huge deployments when more than one team have access to Ignite > cluster and there is no other way to setup tx cretion rules. > > Yakov, > > Could you please share your thoughts on that? > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 8:58, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 4:08 AM, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Dmitriy, Yakov > > > > > > Are there any objections to updated design taking into account the > > comments > > > I provided? > > > > > > > Anton, I do not like an additional validator. I think you can accomplish > > the same with a transaction event. You just need to design it more > cleanly, > > incorporating the feedback from Yakov. > > >
