Given the current types that gfsh supports, I don't see that it will be lots of validation. We have the redundancy level to validate for the REDUNDANT types. And we have HEAP_LRU and OVERFLOW to validate. That is it. The only other thing is the partition only attributes should be rejected when creating a replicate. I think we should just support the types "gfsh create region" does.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:50 PM Jinmei Liao <jil...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Maybe to clarify what I said before (which was certainly unclear ), I am > not saying we only allow users to create limited set of types of region, we > COULD still support all of them, but we should not limit ourselves to the > current ways of doing things. Currently, a flat model of region > configuration which holds a type and all the possible attributes any type > of region can have, could lead to these problems: > 1. the type may be contradictory/redundant to a particular property: > for example, the type could "PARTITION_REDUNDANT", but the > redundantCopies is set to be 0. And the type could be "PARTITION_OVERFLOW", > but the eviction action is set to be "LOCAL_DESTROY". To avoid this, we > will need to do a lot of front end validation in order to accept this > configuration, which is possible to do, but is it really necessary? Should > we somehow limit the type to something that really indicate the "type" > instead of just a shortcut that actually sets a set of attributes. > > 2. the object can hold lots of unnecessary attributes that only pertains to > a particular type > for example, redundantCopies doesn't really apply to replicate regions, but > it's there for you to configure. > > Just some more food for thought. > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:34 PM Charlie Black <cbl...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > Yes it is common for 0,1 and 2. 3 enters into gray space of is the cost > > of redundancy worth it. > > > > So voting for exposing the number of copies to be the same as Apache > Geode > > Java API. > > > > Charlie > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:38 AM Darrel Schneider <dschnei...@pivotal.io > > > > wrote: > > > > > The shortcuts support partitioned regions with 0 and 1 redundant > copies. > > Is > > > redundancies greater than 1 common enough for the rest management api > to > > > support it? > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:27 AM Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 to Alexander’s statement. > > > > > > > > Also, initial revisions need not be feature parity. For us on the > > common > > > > use cases. It’s sounds like an advanced use case to have proxy > regions > > on > > > > the server so focus on the common partitioned and replicated first > for > > > the > > > > initial release. > > > > > > > > -jake > > > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Alexander Murmann < > amurm...@apache.org > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hey folks, I want to make sure that any other's product's roadmaps > > have > > > > no > > > > > impact on any decisions we make about Apache Geode. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > Charlie Black | cbl...@pivotal.io > > > > > -- > Cheers > > Jinmei >
