On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:50 AM Radim Vansa <rva...@redhat.com> wrote:
> While we could define the behaviour as in 3), I think that this is most > Yeah rereading what I wrote again, it was definitely misleading. 3) was what I wanted when I first found the issue. > likely a configuration error. Therefore, I'd go with 1), and ideally > That is what I was leaning towards as well. > provide a link to FAQ/docs where you'd explain what exactly happened in > the exception message. > Yeah I will make sure we have some stuff added to the template section of the user guide. > > R. > > On 02/27/2017 03:31 PM, William Burns 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 > > > -- > Radim Vansa <rva...@redhat.com> > JBoss Performance Team > > _______________________________________________ > 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
