And if there the old way of specifying types/shortcuts was somehow counter-intuitive, 'cause I did from time to time, hearing things like "I wish we did things differently", this is our chance of correcting it.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 6:47 PM Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > -- Cheers Jinmei
