Sure, but based on which value will we set the parameter? It should be a datastore specific value; i.e. each data store should set its own value for this parameter. This is why I proposed to put it in the gora.properties file, as this will be configurable for each data store. This will serve as the default case of the range. Additionally, we can provide extended API methods (as Renato suggested) that accept an extra argument that will override the default case. What do you think?
Apos On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Renato Marroquín Mogrovejo < renatoj.marroq...@gmail.com> wrote: > We'd have to set the new parameter before we start that specific test. Does > it make sense? > > > Renato M. > > > 2013/8/22 Apostolis Giannakidis <ap.giannaki...@gmail.com> > > > Oracle can have both inclusive and exclusive ranges. > > However, I still have not understood how the test cast will work, if we > > follow Renato's suggestion to add another parameter to the API method. > > > > Regards, > > Apos > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Looks like HBase is the one exception? Oracle and Accumulo seem to be > > > inclusive, and I believe Cassandra also inclusive. > > > > > > In the DataStoreTestUtil, we could probably check the type of data > store > > > before executing the delete to pass the right flag. > > > > > > - Henry > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Renato Marroquín Mogrovejo < > > > renatoj.marroq...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > @Henry, you are right mate (: > > > > @Apos, you are right as well mate (: but IMHO we could set this value > > > with > > > > a default value (the one that most data stores use) and run the tests > > > like > > > > this i.e. modifying the tests to make this run well, maybe we could > > even > > > > set this new parameter when starting the test so it runs smoothly. > > > > > > > > > > > > Renato M. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/8/22 Apostolis Giannakidis <ap.giannaki...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > Hi Henry, > > > > > > > > > > As far as I have understood Renato's proposal, that's correct. > > > > > But, now that I think of it, if we follow Renato's suggestion, then > > how > > > > > will the test case[1] know if it should include the key or not in > its > > > > > checks? > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/gora/blob/trunk/gora-core/src/test/java/org/apache/gora/store/DataStoreTestUtil.java#L747 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Henry Saputra < > > > henry.sapu...@gmail.com > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > HI Renato, > > > > > > > > > > > > If the API change include a new parameter to indicate inclusive > vs > > > > > > exclusive then Gora do not have to decide anything and just > > delegate > > > > the > > > > > > new parameter to the corresponding datastore? > > > > > > > > > > > > - Henry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Renato Marroquín Mogrovejo < > > > > > > renatoj.marroq...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we could just add an extra parameter to the query API, > so > > > > users > > > > > > can > > > > > > > decide programmatically whether they want to use the deletes as > > > > > inclusive > > > > > > > or exclusive, and they could do this while programming with > > Gora's > > > > API. > > > > > > And > > > > > > > we could decide to use a default value for the option that most > > > data > > > > > > stores > > > > > > > support. What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Renato M. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/8/18 Apostolis Giannakidis <ap.giannaki...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I can also do both inclusive and exclusive ranges in > > Oracle > > > > > NoSQL. > > > > > > > So > > > > > > > > it remains to be decided by the Gora API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Scott Stults < > > > > > > > > sstu...@opensourceconnections.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply, Apos. Seeing as how this test is in > > flux > > > I > > > > > > won't > > > > > > > > > worry too much about it now. FWIW, I could do inclusive or > > > > > exclusive > > > > > > > > ranges > > > > > > > > > with Lucene. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 17, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Apostolis Giannakidis < > > > > > > > > > ap.giannaki...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Scott, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The issue that you just spotted is the same issue that I > > also > > > > > > > > > > coincidentally spotted a week ago. > > > > > > > > > > Keith Turner first identified the issue and documented it > > in > > > > > Jira. > > > > > > > > Please > > > > > > > > > > see GORA-66. > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GORA-66 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is also a blocking issue for me, as it does not > allow > > me > > > > to > > > > > > > > complete > > > > > > > > > > the implementation of deleteByQuery(). Personally, I > > @Ignored > > > > > this > > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > > case until GORA-66 is resolved. I saw that the same was > > done > > > in > > > > > > > > Accumulo > > > > > > > > > > datastore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this helps, > > > > > > > > > > Apos > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Scott Stults < > > > > > > > > > > sstu...@opensourceconnections.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> All, > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> I'm having a little trouble getting my head around > > > > > > deleteByQuery(). > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > >> javadoc in the interface indicates that any object that > > > > matches > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > query > > > > > > > > > >> should get deleted. The unit test > > > > > > > > > >> DataStoreTestUtil.testDeleteByQueryFields() expects the > > > object > > > > > to > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > >> exist with the queried-for fields cleared. To me it > seems > > > like > > > > > the > > > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > >> for an update, rather than a delete. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Are my semantics all mixed up? > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > >> -Scott > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
