On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Tristan Tarrant <ttarr...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 20/04/2017 15:34, Dan Berindei wrote: >>> >>> How big is the DSL API surface (which will be brought into commons)? >> >> >> -1 from me to add anything in commons, I don't think allowing the >> users to query both embedded caches and remote caches with the same >> code is that important. I'd rather go the opposite way and remove the >> BasicCache interface completely. > > > Actually, we've had requests for interchangeable APIs... > > So, according to your strategy we either have each feature implemented with > a divergent specific embedded or remote API, or each feature has its own > feature-api with two separate feature-embedded and feature-remote > implementations. Both plans sound terrible. >
Would a divergent embedded vs remote API be that bad? If the functionality really is different, then I'd rather have different APIs then force 2 different things use the same API. E.g. with BasicCache, IMO it would have been better to focus on the versioned conditional write operations, and remove all the non-versioned conditional write operations from RemoteCache. I'm sure we could have improved the versioned API a lot, but instead we worked mainly on the non-versioned API that we got from BasicCache. > Alternatively, we could go with an infinispan-api package (which Paul has > been advocating for a long time) which would contain the various interfaces. > > > Tristan > > -- > Tristan Tarrant > Infinispan Lead > JBoss, a division of Red Hat _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev