Hi Alexey, There is nothing to be sorry about :) Сommunity appreciates an alternative vision, this allows us to make as informed decisions as it possible.
Thank you for finding this fact, it is very interesting. I'm not sure all these examples were prepared by experienced Ignite users. So idea of deprecation may have one more argument. Deprecation will help us to inform users about LOCAL cache: Probably local cache is not what they need. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov чт, 26 июл. 2018 г. в 16:57, Alexey Zinoviev <zaleslaw....@gmail.com>: > Sorry, guys, I'll put my 1 cent > > I'd like this idea "Implement LOCAL caches as PARTITIONED caches over the > local node." > It make sense for examples/testing in pseudo-distributed mode and so far. > > But I think that the deprecation based on user-list mentions is a wrong > way. Please look here > https://github.com/search?q=%22CacheMode.LOCAL%22+%26+ignite&type=Code > There a lot of hello world examples with LOCAL mode. > > And of course, we can ask about that on user-list, not here, to vote for > the deprecation like this. > > 2018-07-26 11:23 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > > > I meant LOCAL + non-LOCAL transactions of course. > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:42 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Vladimir, > > > > > > Are you suggesting that a user cannot span more than one local cache > in a > > > cross cache LOCAL transactions. This is extremely surprising to me, as > it > > > would require almost no effort to support it. As far as mixing the > local > > > caches with distributed caches, then I agree, cross-cache transactions > do > > > not make sense. > > > > > > I am not sure why deprecating local caches has become a pressing > issue. I > > > can see that there are a few bugs, but why not just fix them and move > on? > > > Can someone explain why supporting LOCAL caches is such a burden? > > > > > > Having said that, I am not completely opposed to deprecating LOCAL > > caches. > > > I just want to know why. > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Dima, > > > > > > > > LOCAL cache adds very little value to the product. It doesn't support > > > > cross-cache transactions, consumes a lot of memory, much slower than > > any > > > > widely-used concurrent hash map. Let's go the same way as Java - mark > > > LOCAL > > > > cache as "deprecated for removal", and then remove it in 3.0. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:10 PM Dmitrii Ryabov < > somefire...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 to make LOCAL as filtered PARTITIONED cache. I think it would be > > > much > > > > > easier and faster than fixing all bugs. > > > > > > > > > > 2018-07-25 11:51 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > I would stay away from deprecating such huge pieces as a whole > > LOCAL > > > > > cache. > > > > > > In retrospect, we should probably not even have LOCAL caches, but > > > now I > > > > > am > > > > > > certain that it is used by many users. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would do one of the following, whichever one is easier: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Fix the issues found with LOCAL caches, including > persistence > > > > > support > > > > > > - Implement LOCAL caches as PARTITIONED caches over the local > > > node. > > > > In > > > > > > this case, we would have to hide any distribution-related > config > > > > from > > > > > > users, like affinity function, for example. > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like the main drawback of LOCAL cache is that it's > > > > > implemented > > > > > > > separately and therefore has to be maintained separately. If > > that's > > > > the > > > > > > > only issue, why not keep LOCAL cache mode on public API, but > > > > implement > > > > > it > > > > > > > as a PARTITIONED cache with a node filter forcefully set? > That's > > > > > similar > > > > > > to > > > > > > > what we do with REPLICATED caches which are actually > PARTITIONED > > > with > > > > > > > infinite number of backups. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This way we fix the issues described by Stan and don't have to > > > > > deprecate > > > > > > > anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:53 AM Stanislav Lukyanov < > > > > > > > stanlukya...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’d like to start a discussion about the deprecation of the > > LOCAL > > > > > > caches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOCAL caches are an edge-case functionality > > > > > > > > I haven’t done any formal analysis, but from my experience > > LOCAL > > > > > caches > > > > > > > > are needed very rarely, if ever. > > > > > > > > I think most usages of LOCAL caches I’ve seen were misuses: > the > > > > users > > > > > > > > actually needed a simple HashMap, or an actual PARTITIONED > > cache. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOCAL caches are easy to implement on top of PARTITIONED > > > > > > > > If one requires a LOCAL cache (which is itself questionable, > as > > > > > > discussed > > > > > > > > above) it is quite easy to implement one on top of > PARTITIONED > > > > cache. > > > > > > > > A node filter of form `node -> node.id > ().equals(localNodeId)` > > is > > > > > > enough > > > > > > > > to make the cache to be stored on the node that created it. > > > > > > > > Locality of access to the cache (i.e. making it unavailable > > from > > > > > other > > > > > > > > nodes) can be achieved on the application level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOCAL caches are hard to maintain > > > > > > > > A quick look at the open issues mentioning “local cache” > > suggests > > > > > that > > > > > > > > this is a corner case for implementation of many Ignite > > features: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20% > > > > > > > 22local%20cache%22%20and%20%20project%20%3D%20IGNITE% > > > > > > > 20and%20status%20%3D%20open > > > > > > > > In particular, a recent SO question brought up the fact that > > > LOCAL > > > > > > caches > > > > > > > > don’t support native persistence: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51511892/how-to- > > > > > > > configure-persistent-storage-for-apache-ignite-cache > > > > > > > > Having to ask ourselves “how does it play with LOCAL caches” > > > every > > > > > time > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > write any code in Ignite seems way to much for the benefits > we > > > gain > > > > > > from > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal > > > > > > > > Let’s deprecate LOCAL caches in 2.x and remove them in 3.0. > > > > > > > > As a part of deprecation let’s do the following: > > > > > > > > - Put @Deprecated on the CacheMode.LOCAL > > > > > > > > - Print a warning every time a LOCAL cache is created > > > > > > > > - Remove all mentions of LOCAL caches from readme.io, if > any, > > > > except > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > the page about cache modes > > > > > > > > - On the page about cache modes explain that LOCAL is > > deprecated > > > > and > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > be replaced with a PARTITIONED cache with a node filter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Stan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
