[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-18343?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Vladimir Steshin updated IGNITE-18343:
--------------------------------------
    Description: 
The suggestion is to simplify and separate the counters API. 
`PartitionUpdateCounter` should be splited into transactional and amotic ones. 
Unwrap where neded. Atomic caches have no LWM/HWM and related methods. The 
method namings should correspond to the javadocs like lwm()/hwm().
Also, looks like MVCC couneters might have own implementation. We should 
consider transaction model when working and storing the counters.

Suggestions to improve:

1. Use some separated counter interfaces for atomic and transactional caches.

2. 'get()' should be renamed to 'lwm()'

3. 'reserved()' -> 'hwm()' which is probably highestAppliedCounter().
'reserved()' is uncertain. It is only for primary node. Do we need it in a 
interface? Should be removed.
It is used only in CacheContinuousQueryHandler, see [1].

4. Many setters 'update()' / 'update(long start, long delta)' / 'next()' / 
'next(long delta)' / 'reset()' / 'resetInitial()' look over-engineered. Should 
be unified.

5. 'next()' and 'next(long delta)' have wierd implementations in 
PartitionUpdateCounterTrackingImpl. 'next(long delta)' doesn't update the 
reserved counter. Shoulbe be revised.

Related design doc: 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Data+consistency

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-18281

  was:
The suggestion is to simplify and separate the counters API. 
`PartitionUpdateCounter` should be splited into transactional and amotic. 
Unwrap where neded. Atomic caches have no LWM/HWM and related methods. The 
methods namings should correspond to the javadocs like lwm()/hwm().
Also, looks like MVCC couneters might have own implementation. We should 
consider transaction model when working and storing the counters.

Suggestions to improve:

1. Use some separated counter interfaces for atomic and transactional caches.

2. 'get()' should be at least renamed to 'lwm()'

3. 'reserved()' -> 'hwm()' which is probably highestAppliedCounter().
'reserved()' is uncertain. It is only for primary node. Do we need it in a 
interface? Should be removed.
It is used only in CacheContinuousQueryHandler, see [1].

4. Many setters 'update()' / 'update(long start, long delta)' / 'next()' / 
'next(long delta)' / 'reset()' / 'resetInitial()' look over-engineered. Should 
be unified.

5. 'next()' and 'next(long delta)' have wierd implementations in 
PartitionUpdateCounterTrackingImpl. 'next(long delta)' doesn't update the 
reserved counter. Shoulbe be revised.

Related design doc: 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Data+consistency

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-18281

        Summary: Refactor partition counters API.  (was: Refactor partition 
counters APIs.)

> Refactor partition counters API.
> --------------------------------
>
>                 Key: IGNITE-18343
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-18343
>             Project: Ignite
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Vladimir Steshin
>            Priority: Major
>
> The suggestion is to simplify and separate the counters API. 
> `PartitionUpdateCounter` should be splited into transactional and amotic 
> ones. Unwrap where neded. Atomic caches have no LWM/HWM and related methods. 
> The method namings should correspond to the javadocs like lwm()/hwm().
> Also, looks like MVCC couneters might have own implementation. We should 
> consider transaction model when working and storing the counters.
> Suggestions to improve:
> 1. Use some separated counter interfaces for atomic and transactional caches.
> 2. 'get()' should be renamed to 'lwm()'
> 3. 'reserved()' -> 'hwm()' which is probably highestAppliedCounter().
> 'reserved()' is uncertain. It is only for primary node. Do we need it in a 
> interface? Should be removed.
> It is used only in CacheContinuousQueryHandler, see [1].
> 4. Many setters 'update()' / 'update(long start, long delta)' / 'next()' / 
> 'next(long delta)' / 'reset()' / 'resetInitial()' look over-engineered. 
> Should be unified.
> 5. 'next()' and 'next(long delta)' have wierd implementations in 
> PartitionUpdateCounterTrackingImpl. 'next(long delta)' doesn't update the 
> reserved counter. Shoulbe be revised.
> Related design doc: 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Data+consistency
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-18281



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

Reply via email to