Folks,
Let's back to discussion.
We've already deprecated local caches [1], so it's time to remove them.
I've prepared the PR, please check:
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15759
- https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/10157
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15756
On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 09:33, Zhenya Stanilovsky
wrote:
>
>
>
> Ok, we can use node filters in such a case, i understand )
>
>
>
> >I just dream up ) If some one have cached web session layer over
> >ignite with sticky cookie [1] and cross cache transaction logic through
> >local and global caches how this schema will transform without local ?
> >
> >[1]
> >https://www.imperva.com/learn/availability/sticky-session-persistence-and-cookies/
> >
> >
> >> I am not about creation per se, but creation from a thin client side.
> >>
> >> This feature simply doesn't work as expected, broken and impossible to
> >> fix.
> >> It cannot broke any code, because it was already broken and it is
> >> impossible to use in production.
> >> But it still can embarrass newcomers and brings a lot of frustration.
> >>
> >> It is much more safe to ban a creation of LOCAL caches from thin clients.
> >>
> >> But it can survive for a while for ignite cluster nodes, client and
> >> server.
> >>
> >> вт, 14 сент. 2021 г. в 14:06, Maxim Muzafarov < mmu...@apache.org >:
> >>
> >>> Ivan,
> >>>
> >>> I don't think we should rush with this. Banning the creation of LOCAL
> >>> caches without a warning through the code sounds not good. Will it be
> >>> better to do everything in three steps (releases)? 2.12 deprecate,
> >>> 2.13 forbid new cache creation, 2.14 remove.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 12:09, Ivan Daschinsky < ivanda...@gmail.com >
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Few thoughts about LOCAL caches on thin client:
> >>> >
> >>> > 1. If partition awareness is disabled:
> >>> > a. Inconsistent behaviour if node to which client is connected goes
> >>> down.
> >>> > 2. If partition awareness is enabled:
> >>> > a. For Java and .NET -- same as 1a
> >>> > b. For C++ and python -- use random routing for caches that are not
> >>> > PARTITIONED, so inconsistent behaviour from the beginning.
> >>> >
> >>> > So I suppose we should ban creation of LOCAL caches from thin client
> >>> in
> >>> > 2.12 (fail attempt to create such caches in ClientRequestHandler
> >>> >
> >>> > вт, 14 сент. 2021 г. в 11:31, Ivan Daschinsky < ivanda...@gmail.com >:
> >>> >
> >>> > > >> Unsupported operation exception.
> >>> > > Binary protocol doesn't have a concept of exception, only error
> >>> status
> >>> and
> >>> > > message, but it is just a remark
> >>> > > I suppose that response with error status and message is ok, but
> >>> may be
> >>> > > others have different opinion?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > >> Removal should happen at 2.13.
> >>> > > A few thin clients are released separately. I suppose that it is
> >>> better to
> >>> > > remove this feature from pyignite a little bit earlier.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > вт, 14 сент. 2021 г. в 11:21, Anton Vinogradov < a...@apache.org >:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >> > 1. What is expected behaviour if an old thin client requests
> >>> creation of
> >>> > >> > LOCAL cache on the newest ignite cluster?
> >>> > >> Unsupported operation exception.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> > 2. Should we completely remove LOCAL caches support in thin
> >>> clients
> >>> > >> (i.e.
> >>> > >> pyignite) before 2.13 release?
> >>> > >> Removal should happen at 2.13.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:30 AM Ivan Daschinsky <
> >>> ivanda...@gmail.com
> >>> >
> >>> > >> wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> > >> 2. 2.13 - complete removal LOCAL caches from codebase.
> >>> > >> > Let's discuss this step with more details.
> >>> > >> > 1. What is expected behaviour if an old thin client requests
> >>> creation of
> >>> > >> > LOCAL cache on the newest ignite cluster?
> >>> > >> > 2. Should we completely remove LOCAL caches support in thin
> >>> clients
> >>> > >> (i.e.
> >>> > >> > pyignite) before 2.13 release?
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > вт, 14 сент. 2021 г. в 10:11, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>> nizhi...@apache.org
> >>> >:
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > > I proposed the following plan:
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > 1. 2.12 - deprecation of LOCAL caches.
> >>> > >> > > 2. 2.13 - complete removal LOCAL caches from codebase.
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > > 13 сент. 2021 г., в 13:30, Ivan Daschinsky <
> >>> ivanda...@gmail.com
> >>> >
> >>> > >> > > написал(а):
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > > I personally support deprecation, but we should at least
> >>> have a
> >>> > >> plan.
> >>> > >> > > > I suppose that putting annotations and removing documentation
> >>> are
> >>> > >> not
> >>> > >> > > > enough.
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > > пн, 13 сент. 2021 г. в 13:22, Maxim Muzafarov <
> >>> mmu...@apache.org >:
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > >> Ivan,
> >>> > >> > > >>
> >>> > >> > > >> I don't think we can remove LOCAL caches at the nearest
> >>>
