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
