We merged memory and persistence on config level. So we should merge metrics in the same way. DataRegionMetrics is absolutely normal name, even if it contains only persistence-related stuff at the moment.
вс, 1 окт. 2017 г. в 14:41, Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com>: > Denis, > > 1) You're right. I forgot to include the main flag in > DataRegionConfiguration - *isPersistenceEnabled*. Persistence will be > enabled globally if at least one memory region has this flag set. > Regarding default data region, I've added > *isDefaultDataRegionPersistenceEnabled *to the DataStorageConfiguration. > Check the design draft again. > > 2) Of course, we have to maintain API compatibility. Deprecating old > classes and introducing new is just what I meant. > > 3) We can't do that - MemoryMetrics are calculated per memory policy and > PersistenceMetrics are calculated globally. It's a major change to > implement it another way. > > By the way, let's assure the namings for new metrics classes. > DataRegionMetrics instead of MemoryMetrics looks fine. > About PersistenceMetrics - name "*DataStorageMetrics*" is not fair > enough as it will contain only metrics of persistent storage. Probably > *DataStoragePersistenceMetrics*,*PersistentDataStorageMetrics *or even > keeping *PersistenceMetrics* are better. > > What do you think? > > Best Regards, > Ivan Rakov > > On 29.09.2017 21:12, Denis Magda wrote: > > Ivan, > > > > Several questions/concerns: > > > > 1. Looking at the new API I can’t grasp how to enable the persistence. > First, how can I enable it globally if there is only one default data > region defined. Second, how do I enable it per data region. Can’t find any > related switches in the draft. > > > > 2. We cannot renamed anything like you’re suggesting to do for > MemoryMetrics and their beans. We have to deprecate old and introduce new. > > > > 3. I think we should merge Memory and Persistence Metrics into > DataStorageMetrics for clarity. > > > > — > > Denis > > > > > >> On Sep 29, 2017, at 6:29 AM, Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Guys, > >> > >> I've attached new configuration design draft to the ticket description: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6030 > >> Please, take a look. Right now is the best time to change name of any > property. > >> > >> And question about metrics: are we going to rename MemoryMetrics and > PersistenceMetrics respectively (along with their MBeans)? > >> It's not a problem to implement it at all. The only thing that concerns > me is that we have to keep deprecated old classes in the codebase. Perhaps, > MemoryMetrics/PersistenceMetrics are intuitive enough. > >> > >> On 29.09.2017 3:16, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > >>> StorageRegion sounds like bad English to me. > >>> > >>> I would go with DataStorageConfiguration and DataRegionConfiguration. > >>> > >>> D. > >>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Guys, > >>>> > >>>> But what is exact desicion? :-) I saw two final options: > >>>> > >>>> 1) StorageConfiguration + StorageRegionConfiguration > >>>> 2) DataStorageConfiguration + DataRegionConfiguration > >>>> > >>>> Which one we choose? > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> I guess it is safe to assume that at this point we came to a > consensus? > >>>>> Alex, I think so. Let's carve it in stone (code). > >>>>> > >>>>> --Yakov > >>>>> > >
