Vyacheslav. What is your suggestion for the API?
Single implementation for both Ignite#active(boolean) and IgniteMXBean#active(boolean) Should public java API continue to silently clears in-memory caches? > 14 февр. 2020 г., в 15:56, Вячеслав Коптилин <slava.kopti...@gmail.com> > написал(а): > > Hello Vladimir, > >> adding a new method with force flag means old methods change their > behavior: > I don't think that changing the behavior of public API is the right way. > Moreover, I agree with Alex that there is no need to introduce a > "confirmation" flag to the java API. > > Thanks, > S. > > пт, 14 февр. 2020 г. в 15:38, Vladimir Steshin <vlads...@gmail.com>: > >> Alexey, adding a new method with force flag means old methods change their >> behavior: they are considered as executed without ‘force‘ flag and can fail >> to prevent data loss. Ignite and IgniteMXBean are different interfaces. >> Unfortunately, they have same method >> >> void active(boolean active) >> >> When executed as IgniteMXBean it should fail if user can lose data. When >> executed from code via interface Ignite probably not. To solve this I >> suggest to add ‘force’ flag for every deactivation mode: CLI/JMX/REST and >> other API. >> >> пт, 14 февр. 2020 г. в 15:20, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com >>> : >> >>> Igniters, >>> >>> Do we really need the confirmation flag on the public API? I absolutely >>> agree on the CLI and MXBean, but what is the reason for the flag in the >>> API? It will be specified at the compile time anyway and does not prevent >>> any user error. >>> From the implementation point of view I see no contradiction - we can add >>> the new method to the MXBean, but nothing forces us to add it to Ignite >>> interface - those interfaces are not related. >>> >>
