[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-17199?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kirill Tkalenko updated IGNITE-17199:
-------------------------------------
Description:
*Problem*
Consider an example of generating configuration interfaces (**Configuration*)
for an abstract configuration.
Configuration schemas:
{code:java}
@AbstractConfiguration
public class BaseConfigurationSchema {
@Value
public int size;
}
@Config
public class VolatileConfigurationSchema extends BaseConfigurationSchema {
@Value
public double evictionThreshold;
}
{code}
Configuration interfaces:
{code:java}
public interface BaseConfiguration<VIEWT extends BaseView, CHANGET extends
BaseChange> extends ConfigurationTree<VIEWT, CHANGET> {
ConfigurationValue<Integer> size();
}
public interface VolatileConfiguration extends BaseConfiguration<VolatileView,
VolatileChange> {
ConfigurationValue<Integer> size();
}
{code}
This implementation allows us to work with the inheritors of the abstract
configuration as with a regular configuration (as if
*VolatileConfigurationSchema* did not extend *BaseConfigurationSchema*), but
when working with the abstract configuration itself, it creates inconvenience.
For example, to get a view of the abstract configuration, we will need to write
the following code:
{code:java}
BaseConfiguration baseConfig0 = ...;
BaseConfiguration<?, ?> baseConfig1 = ...;
BaseView baseView0 = (BasePageMemoryDataRegionView) baseConfig0.value();
BaseView baseView1 = baseConfig1.value();
{code}
Which is not convenient and I would like us to be able to work in the same way
as with the *VolatileConfiguration*.
*Implementation proposal*
was:
*Problem*
Consider an example of generating configuration interfaces (**Configuration*)
for an abstract configuration.
Configuration schemas:
{code:java}
@AbstractConfiguration
public class BaseConfigurationSchema {
@Value
public int size;
}
@Config
public class VolatileConfigurationSchema extends BaseConfigurationSchema {
@Value
public double evictionThreshold;
}
{code}
Configuration interfaces:
{code:java}
public interface BaseConfiguration<VIEWT extends BaseView, CHANGET extends
BaseChange> extends ConfigurationTree<VIEWT, CHANGET> {
ConfigurationValue<Integer> size();
}
public interface VolatileConfiguration extends BaseConfiguration<VolatileView,
VolatileChange> {
ConfigurationValue<Integer> size();
}
{code}
This implementation allows us to work with the inheritors of the abstract
configuration as with a regular configuration (as if
*VolatileConfigurationSchema* did not extend *BaseConfigurationSchema*), but
when working with the abstract configuration itself, it creates inconvenience.
For example, to get a view of the abstract configuration, we will need to write
the following code:
{code:java}
BaseConfiguration baseConfig0 = ...;
BaseConfiguration<?, ?> baseConfig1 = ...;
BaseView baseView0 = (BasePageMemoryDataRegionView) baseConfig0.value();
BaseView baseView1 = baseConfig1.value();
{code}
Which is not convenient and I would like us to be able to work in the same way
as with the *VolatileConfiguration*.
*Implementation proposal*
For an abstract configuration schema, generate 2 configuration interfaces, the
first is package private, the second is public.
The abstract configuration and all its inheritors will extend the package's
private interface.
For example:
{code:java}
public interface BaseConfiguration<VIEWT extends BaseView, CHANGET extends
BaseChange> extends ConfigurationTree<VIEWT, CHANGET> {
ConfigurationValue<Integer> size();
}
public interface VolatileConfiguration extends BaseConfiguration<VolatileView,
VolatileChange> {
ConfigurationValue<Integer> size();
}
{code}
> Improve the usability of the abstract configuration interface
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IGNITE-17199
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-17199
> Project: Ignite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Kirill Tkalenko
> Assignee: Kirill Tkalenko
> Priority: Major
> Labels: iep-55, ignite-3
> Fix For: 3.0.0-alpha6
>
>
> *Problem*
> Consider an example of generating configuration interfaces (**Configuration*)
> for an abstract configuration.
> Configuration schemas:
> {code:java}
> @AbstractConfiguration
> public class BaseConfigurationSchema {
> @Value
> public int size;
> }
> @Config
> public class VolatileConfigurationSchema extends BaseConfigurationSchema {
> @Value
> public double evictionThreshold;
> }
> {code}
> Configuration interfaces:
> {code:java}
> public interface BaseConfiguration<VIEWT extends BaseView, CHANGET extends
> BaseChange> extends ConfigurationTree<VIEWT, CHANGET> {
> ConfigurationValue<Integer> size();
> }
> public interface VolatileConfiguration extends
> BaseConfiguration<VolatileView, VolatileChange> {
> ConfigurationValue<Integer> size();
> }
> {code}
> This implementation allows us to work with the inheritors of the abstract
> configuration as with a regular configuration (as if
> *VolatileConfigurationSchema* did not extend *BaseConfigurationSchema*), but
> when working with the abstract configuration itself, it creates
> inconvenience.
> For example, to get a view of the abstract configuration, we will need to
> write the following code:
> {code:java}
> BaseConfiguration baseConfig0 = ...;
> BaseConfiguration<?, ?> baseConfig1 = ...;
>
> BaseView baseView0 = (BasePageMemoryDataRegionView) baseConfig0.value();
> BaseView baseView1 = baseConfig1.value();
> {code}
> Which is not convenient and I would like us to be able to work in the same
> way as with the *VolatileConfiguration*.
> *Implementation proposal*
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.7#820007)
