On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Denis Magda <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 12/21/2015 11:15 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Denis Magda <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Why it shouldn't work? >>> If client receives an entry that has a reference to the entry with >>> version, transferred from a server as well as a part of the response, >>> then >>> unwrap(...) should work. >>> Isn't this feasible to implement? >>> >>> The reason is consistency. If getEntry(…) can be unwrapped on the client >> side, then all the query results should be un-wrappable as well, which >> means that we have to always carry the cache version, even if user does >> not >> need it. >> > The proposal is to add getEntry(...) method exactly for the cases when > someone needs an entry with a version on a client. > In all other cases (queries, etc.) the version won't be a part of a > response. > > Right, this is inconsistent but if to document everything well then the > user will only benefit from the new getEntry(...) method. > CacheEntry with version is already can be unwrapped from specific places > that are listed in its documentation. We will just broaden the list. > Romain, Andrey, can you please comment?
