For me it looks like some coincidence effect. I understand that we get such behavior because deactivation works the same way as for persistent caches. Was cluster activation/deactivation designed and described for in-memory caches? Current behavior sounds for me a as big risk. I expect a lot of upset users unexpectedly purged all their data.
пт, 31 янв. 2020 г. в 00:00, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>: > > Because originally the sole purpose of deactivation was resource > deallocation. > > чт, 30 янв. 2020 г. в 22:13, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > Such a revelation for me that data is purged from RAM if someone > > deactivates the cluster. Alex, do you remember why we decided to implement > > it this way initially? > > > > - > > Denis > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:09 AM Alexey Goncharuk < > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I agree on CLI and JMX because those interfaces can be used by a system > > > administrator and can be invoked by mistake. > > > > > > As for the Java API, personally, I find it strange to add 'force' or > > > 'confirm' flags to it because it is very unlikely that such an invocation > > > is done by mistake. Such mistakes are caught during the testing phase and > > > developers will end up hard-coding 'true' as a flag anyways. > > > > > -- Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin
