If you code it you have to test it. An all or nothing approach will take longer to deliver any value. Breaking it into a priority set and committing the sets gives immediate value.
> On Aug 20, 2019, at 6:12 PM, Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
