To me index / purge / purgeAll are not simply about what the MassIndexer does. I can see use cases where you manually control indexing without considering doing this en mass. remember, people can disable event based indexing.
On 13 mai 2012, at 23:17, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > [thread diverged, not sure how to reply on each point.. so clean sheet:] > > I agree as a user it's not simple to deal with two "massindex" > approaches, even worse if they behave differently. Your > straight-forward take on it is to make sure they behave the same, and > I see some good value in it.. still we end up having two ways to > achieve the same thing, which is *one too much*. Let's go one step > further conceptually, and remove one (give me a second..). > > Second point is, with the exclusive indexing and the IndexManager > abstraction, it's pretty hard for the user to make "free form" changes > to the index: we don't allow external tools to connect to the index > and apply changes as we own the lock; the only option for the power > user is to use #index, #purge, #purgeAll to make "advanced" self > controlled changes to the index. This is the only option a user has to > override all the automagic behaviour, and let him deal with changes > directly. I think it's important that we have such an option to expose > the ultimate control toe the user overriding any internal filtering > logic, and these methods have always had this role. > > Proposal: after we clarify the fact that these methods go straight to > the index without any interception (no doubt clarification is needed), > we change the chapter describing the "old style indexing" from being > one of the suggested methods for reindexing, to be "just an example" > of the index method, and for example how it could be done to write > your own MassIndexer - however some wiring would be needed, for > example 1)the manual session clear and 2)apply indexing interceptors > are concerns the user has to take care of. > > I think it's important to keep that example in the docs for those > cases there is a problem with the MassIndexer, or just as a great > example for those index controlling methods - but it's confusing to > suggest two ways to do the same thing as we do today. > > +0,8 to optionally (with a boolean) enable interception on those > methods. I guess it might be handy, but I'm not fully convinced on > their use and it's yet-another-method, we're getting a bit complex. > At least it's better than always applying the interceptor as the > missing method would make it clear that this wouldn't work on > #purgeAll: as Emmanuel pointed out that's not going to fly. > > Cheers, > Sanne _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
