I'm not at all sure why supporting the current set is more work than a subset. Are we planning to fix issues in the current implementation in the new API rather than the underlying (still needed) existing API? How is that a good idea?
-- Mike Stolz Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 9:09 PM Anilkumar Gingade <aging...@pivotal.io> wrote: > My vote is for supporting all the region type currently supported. As mike > was pointing, we have seen usecases where different regions are used for > specific application needs. > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:09 PM Darrel Schneider <dschnei...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > gfsh create region currently does not support "distributed-no-ack" nor > > "global". I did not find in jira a feature request for gfsh to support > > these. So I think it would be safe for the Geode Management REST API to > > also not support those scopes. > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:10 PM Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Here's my 2cents: The Geode Management REST API should definitely > support > > > "group" such that creation of a region may target zero, one, or more > > > groups. > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider < > dschnei...@pivotal.io > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Is "group" support on the PCC roadmap or is the plan for the members > > of a > > > > cluster to always be uniform? > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:56 AM Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > So, sound like we still need to support *PROXY types. It's OK to > drop > > > > > support for LOCAL* region types in management rest API? > > > > > > > > > > Also, regarding existing region shortcuts, we are also > experimenting > > > > using > > > > > different object types to represent different types of region, for > > > > example, > > > > > redundantCopies property should only exists in partition regions. > > > Instead > > > > > of having a flat object that could have a type of any of these > values > > > and > > > > > holds all sorts of properties that may/may not make sense for that > > > type, > > > > > should just have a factory method that given these region > shortcuts, > > we > > > > > would return a specific region object that's determined by this > type? > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jens Deppe <jde...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Currently, when deployed to the cloud (aka PCC) there is no > ability > > > > for a > > > > > > user to group members thus it is also not possible to create > > regions > > > > (via > > > > > > gfsh at least) that are separated by groups. Typically one would > > > > create a > > > > > > PROXY region against one group and the PARTITION region against > > > another > > > > > > group. However, without the ability to assign groups, that is not > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > --Jens > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:46 AM Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know that lots of folks use PROXY regions on the server side > to > > > > host > > > > > > > logic associated with the region, but I think they always do > that > > > in > > > > > > > conjunction with server groups so that the proxy is on some of > > the > > > > > server > > > > > > > and the same region containing data is on others. Given the way > > > > > cache.xml > > > > > > > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but > I'm > > > not > > > > > > sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not > go > > > > > > backward > > > > > > > to the separate attributes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Mike Stolz > > > > > > > Principal Engineer, Pivotal Cloud Cache > > > > > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:59 PM Darrel Schneider < > > > > > dschnei...@pivotal.io> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is > the > > > > > > cluster. > > > > > > > So > > > > > > > > these regions would be created on servers. > > > > > > > > So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY > regions > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > > > > server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they > > would > > > > > still > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > supported on clients. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jinmei Liao < > jil...@pivotal.io > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Region type (in another word Region shortcut) defines a set > > of > > > > > > > attributes > > > > > > > > > for a region. These are the list of region types we have: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LOCAL, > > > > > > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > > > > LOCAL_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > LOCAL_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > LOCAL_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PARTITION, > > > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT, > > > > > > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > > > > PARTITION_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > PARTITION_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > PARTITION_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > PARTITION_REDUNDANT_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE, > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT, > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_PERSISTENT_OVERFLOW, > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_HEAP_LRU, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE_PROXY, > > > > > > > > > PARTITION_PROXY, > > > > > > > > > PARTITION_PROXY_REDUNDANT, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In region management rest api, especially in PCC world, we > > are > > > > > > > wondering > > > > > > > > > 1) should we allow users to create LOCAL* regions through > > > > > management > > > > > > > rest > > > > > > > > > api? > > > > > > > > > 2) should we allow users to create *PROXY regions through > > > > > management > > > > > > > rest > > > > > > > > > api? > > > > > > > > > 3) for the rest of the PARTITION* and REPLICATE* types, > > should > > > we > > > > > > > strive > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > keep the region type list the same as before, or only keep > > the > > > > type > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > REPLICATE/PARTITION, but use other properties like > > > > "redundantCopy" > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > "evictionAction" to allow different permutations of region > > > > > > attributes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > comments appreciated! > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jinmei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > Jinmei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
