I would go for option 2. We already started disconnecting the cache definition and retrieval, at least `getCache(name)` doesn't define a new cache based on the default configuration any more. So I don't think it would be too much, even at this point, to deprecate all the overloads of `getCache` that can define a new cache and advise users to use `defineConfiguration` instead.
Cheers Dan On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM, William Burns <mudokon...@gmail.com> wrote: > When working on another project using Infinispan the code being used was a > bit interesting and I don't think our template configuration handling was > expecting it do so in such a way. > > Essentially the code defined a template for a distributed cache as well as > some named caches. Then whenever a cache is retrieved it would pass the > given name and always the distributed cache template. Unfortunately with > the way templates work they essentially redefine a cache first so the actual > cache configuration was wiped out. In this example I was able to get the > code to change to using a default cache instead, which is the behavior that > is needed. > > The issue though at hand is whether we should allow a user to call getCache > in such a way. My initial thought is to have it throw some sort of > configuration exception when this is invoked. But there are some possible > options. > > 1. Throw a configuration exception not allowing a user to use a template > with an already defined cache. This has a slight disconnect between > configuration and runtime, since if a user adds a new definition it could > cause runtime issues. > 2. Log an error/warning message when this occurs. Is this enough though? > Still could have runtime issues that are possibly undetected. > 3. Merge the configurations together applying the template first. This > would be akin to how default cache works currently, but you would get to > define your default template configuration at runtime. This sounded like the > best option to me, but the problem is what if someone calls getCache using > the same cache name but a different template. This could get hairy as well. > > Really thinking about the future, disconnecting the cache definition and > retrieval would be the best option, but we can't do that this late in the > game. > > What do you guys think? > > - Will > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
