*I will wait for other feedbacks/comments, if there is no objection i willchange it to "forwardExpirationDestroy" with default value set to true.*
think you meant to say default value to set false :-) On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Anilkumar Gingade <aging...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Thanks Darrel... > > The name change was based on the review comments: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/46243/ > > I am fine with either one, ignoreXXX or forwardXXX. > > I will wait for other feedbacks/comments, if there is no objection i will > change it to "forwardExpirationDestroy" with default value set to true. > > Thanks, > -Anil. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Darrel Schneider <dschnei...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > When did forwardXXX become ignoreXXX? I read through the email thread and > > couldn't find why that happened. It is best for the default on a boolean > > property to be false. That was the case when it was forwardXXX. But now > > that it has changed to ignoreXXX the default has become true. I'd vote > for > > it being named something whose default can be false. > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Anilkumar Gingade <aging...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Team, > > > > > > As proposed here, we added support to propagate eviction and expiration > > > (destroy) operation to AsyncEventQueue using single flag/attribute > > > "ignoreEvictionAndExpiration" by default which is true (to keep the > same > > > behavior) and one could set (false) to receive eviction/expiration > > event... > > > > > > But we come across a product issue, GEODE-1472, that cause data > > > inconsistency (with eviction destroy)....For this reason we are > planning > > to > > > break the "ignoreEvictionAndExpiration" attribute to eviction and > > > expiration specific: > > > "ignoreEvictionDestroy", "ignoreExpirationDestroy"... > > > > > > Currently we are planning to support "ignoreExpirationDestroy", and > add > > > "ignoreEvictionDestroy" once GEODE-1472 is fixed... > > > > > > Looking for comments on this... > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -Anil. > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-1472 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Anilkumar Gingade < > aging...@pivotal.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Kirk, We could not think of any such requirement...And with this > > > > application will get all the update operation and can take > appropriate > > > > action (use or ignore)... > > > > > > > > -Anil. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Would any user ever have a reason to enable forwarding of one type > but > > > not > > > >> the other? If so then I would separate them as > forwardEvictionEvents() > > > and > > > >> forwardExpirationEvents(). > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Kirk Lund <kl...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > +1 for being more explicit with the "And" conjunction > > > >> > > > > >> > -Kirk > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> I’d prefer to insert a conjunction to clarify the meaning: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> forwardEvictionAndExpirationEvents() > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> $0.02, > > > >> >> Anthony > > > >> >> > > > >> >> On Apr 12, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Anilkumar Gingade < > > aging...@pivotal.io> > > > >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> *New attribute:* "forwardEvictionExpirationEvents()" (Any > alternate > > > >> >> names?). > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
