Folks, I've found no mention in ignite code where EvictionPolicy used as MBean and it seems it is never registered as MBean. Is it really need to have MBean interfaces for EvictionPolicy implementations?
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 to Vladimir suggestion > > --Yakov > > 2017-02-07 20:50 GMT+07:00 Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]>: > > > Andrey, Valya, > > > > There is another problem here. What is we decide to add some existing > > setter method to MBean? If it has signature "T setSomething(...)", we > will > > not be able to do so. We need to understand how to deal with it, so that > > possible further improvements to MBean-s are not compromised. Any ideas? > > May be we should fully decouple MBeans into separate classes? > > > > E.g. instead of: > > FifoEvictionPolicy implements FifoEvictionPolicyMBean > > > > we will have > > FifoEvictionPolicy > > FifoEvictionPolicyMBeanImpl implements FifoEvictionPolicyMBean > > > > This way public API will be fully decoupled form JMX what seems > reasonable > > to me. Thoughts? > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Andrey Mashenkov < > > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > Val, > > > > > > void setBatchSize(int batchSize) > > > void setMaxMemorySize(long maxMemSize) > > > void setMaxSize(int max) > > > void setExcludePaths(Collection<String> excludePaths) > > > void setMaxBlocks(int maxBlocks) > > > void setParallelJobsNumber(int num) > > > void setWaitingJobsNumber(int num) > > > > > > https://ignite.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/javadoc/org/ > > > apache/ignite/cache/eviction/fifo/FifoEvictionPolicyMBean.html > > > https://ignite.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/javadoc/org/ > > > apache/ignite/cache/eviction/igfs/IgfsPerBlockLruEvictionPolicyM > > XBean.html > > > https://ignite.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/javadoc/org/ > > > apache/ignite/cache/eviction/lru/LruEvictionPolicyMBean.html > > > https://ignite.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/javadoc/org/ > > > apache/ignite/cache/eviction/sorted/SortedEvictionPolicyMBean.html > > > https://ignite.apache.org/releases/1.8.0/javadoc/org/ > > > apache/ignite/spi/collision/fifoqueue/FifoQueueCollisionSpiMBean.html > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Andrey, > > > > > > > > Can you list all setters that we have on MBeans? > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > Changing MBeans setters signature is bad idea. AOP tests failed on > TC > > > > with > > > > > this change. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Vladimir Ozerov < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Val, > > > > > > > > > > > > Good catch! Can we try leaving SPIs and base methods untouched? > > Will > > > it > > > > > API > > > > > > be consistent in this case? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tend to think that the problem is that we try to apply > 'builder > > > > > > approach' > > > > > > > to *ALL* setters. Let's approach this smarter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This approach is actually applicable only for configuration > > setters > > > > > > > available on public API, i.e. it's only about setters on > > > > > ***Configuration > > > > > > > classes and SPI *implementations*. For SPI interface methods > like > > > > > > > 'CollisionSpi.setExternalCollisionListener' this makes no > > sense, I > > > > > would > > > > > > > not touch them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only thing I still don't like is MBeans. Returning > something > > > > except > > > > > > > void on MBean interfaces look ugly, but without doing this we > > will > > > > > break > > > > > > > API consistency on the implementation. Any ideas on how to > > approach > > > > > this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Denis Magda < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, “public modifications” -> “public APIs” > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > — > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Denis Magda < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the changes affect public modifications don’t forget to > > > update > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > page: > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/ > > > > > > > > Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <https://cwiki.apache.org/ > > > > > > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > — > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Feb 3, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Vladimir, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Ok. I'll go ahead with changing SPI interfaces and run TC > > > test. > > > > > > > > >> I think, it would be better to have this branch merged to > > > master > > > > > as > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > > > >> separate commits at least. > > > > > > > > >> And may be we should make changes of SPI interfaces in > > > separate > > > > > Jira > > > > > > > > >> ticket? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Andrey, > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> This is very important change from usability standpoint. > > But > > > my > > > > > > main > > > > > > > > >>> concern is changes to SPI *interfaces*. If we do so users > > who > > > > > > > > implemented > > > > > > > > >>> custom SPIs will have broken compatibility. On the other > > > hand, > > > > I > > > > > > > doubt > > > > > > > > >>> there will be too much affected users, and we break > > > compilation > > > > > in > > > > > > AI > > > > > > > > 2.0 > > > > > > > > >>> anyway. So looks like we can go ahead with it. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> Thoughts? > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > > > > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>>> My only concern is MBean interfaces. These are not > called > > > from > > > > > > code, > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > >>>> from MBean viewers, and I'm not sure setters not > returning > > > > voids > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >>>> properly treated as setters by these viewers. This needs > > to > > > be > > > > > > > > checked. > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> -Val > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > > > > >>>> [email protected] > > > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Val, > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Yes, you are right. I don't think we should care about > > > > > > compilation > > > > > > > > >>>>> error on user side, as we break compatibility with > > previous > > > > > > > versions. > > > > > > > > >>>>> But we talk about public interfaces and may be someone > > has > > > > some > > > > > > > cons > > > > > > > > >>>>> or suggestions? > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > > > > >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Andrey, > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> In which case compatibility is broken? If there is a > > > method > > > > > that > > > > > > > > >>>> returns > > > > > > > > >>>>>> void and you change it to return some type, it doesn't > > > break > > > > > > > > >>> anything, > > > > > > > > >>>>>> because currently nobody can assign the result of this > > > > method > > > > > > to a > > > > > > > > >>>>>> variable. I.e. in old code the returned value will be > > > always > > > > > > > > ignored, > > > > > > > > >>>>>> therefore it can be of any type. > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Is there anything else that I'm missing? > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -Val > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > > > > >>>>>> [email protected] > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Igniters, > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I'm working on IGNITE-4564 [1] to make our > > configuration > > > > > > classes > > > > > > > > >>> and > > > > > > > > >>>>> SPI > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> classes more convenient. > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> There is no problem to change return type in setter > > > method > > > > > > > > >>> signatures > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> and override methods in child child classes to make > > them > > > > > return > > > > > > > > >>> more > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> accurate type. > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> But, I found that we have set methods in some of our > > > > > interfaces > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> changing its signature may broke compatibility with > > user > > > > > > > > >>>>> implementations. > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Here are example interfaces with setters: > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.cache.eviction.fifo. > > > > > FifoEvictionPolicyMBean > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.cache.eviction.igfs. > > > > > > > > >>> IgfsPerBlockLruEvictionPolicyM > > > > > > > > >>>>>> XBean > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.cache.eviction.lru. > > > > LruEvictionPolicyMBean > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.cache.eviction.sorted. > > > > > > > SortedEvictionPolicyMBean > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.spi.checkpoint.CheckpointSpi > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.spi.collision.CollisionSpi > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.spi.collision.fifoqueue. > > > > > > > > >>> FifoQueueCollisionSpiMBean > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> However we have interfaces with NO setters > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.spi.loadbalancing.adaptive. > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> AdaptiveLoadBalancingSpiMBean. > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> What can we do with it? > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Change signature of setters without regarding > > > > compatibility? > > > > > Or > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > >>>> be > > > > > > > > >>>>> it > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> is possible to remove setters from some interfaces? > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Thought? > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/browse/IGNITE-4564 > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> -- > > > > > > > > >>>>> С уважением, > > > > > > > > >>>>> Машенков Андрей Владимирович > > > > > > > > >>>>> Тел. +7-921-932-61-82 > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Best regards, > > > > > > > > >>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > >>>>> Cerr: +7-921-932-61-82 > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > > > >> С уважением, > > > > > > > > >> Машенков Андрей Владимирович > > > > > > > > >> Тел. +7-921-932-61-82 > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Best regards, > > > > > > > > >> Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > >> Cerr: +7-921-932-61-82 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > С уважением, > > > > > Машенков Андрей Владимирович > > > > > Тел. +7-921-932-61-82 > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > Cerr: +7-921-932-61-82 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov
