Ivan, I don't think we should rush with this. Banning the creation of LOCAL caches without a warning through the code sounds not good. Will it be better to do everything in three steps (releases)? 2.12 deprecate, 2.13 forbid new cache creation, 2.14 remove.
On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 12:09, Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Few thoughts about LOCAL caches on thin client: > > 1. If partition awareness is disabled: > a. Inconsistent behaviour if node to which client is connected goes down. > 2. If partition awareness is enabled: > a. For Java and .NET -- same as 1a > b. For C++ and python -- use random routing for caches that are not > PARTITIONED, so inconsistent behaviour from the beginning. > > So I suppose we should ban creation of LOCAL caches from thin client in > 2.12 (fail attempt to create such caches in ClientRequestHandler > > вт, 14 сент. 2021 г. в 11:31, Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com>: > > > >> Unsupported operation exception. > > Binary protocol doesn't have a concept of exception, only error status and > > message, but it is just a remark > > I suppose that response with error status and message is ok, but may be > > others have different opinion? > > > > >> Removal should happen at 2.13. > > A few thin clients are released separately. I suppose that it is better to > > remove this feature from pyignite a little bit earlier. > > > > вт, 14 сент. 2021 г. в 11:21, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > > > >> > 1. What is expected behaviour if an old thin client requests creation of > >> > LOCAL cache on the newest ignite cluster? > >> Unsupported operation exception. > >> > >> > 2. Should we completely remove LOCAL caches support in thin clients > >> (i.e. > >> pyignite) before 2.13 release? > >> Removal should happen at 2.13. > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:30 AM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> 2. 2.13 - complete removal LOCAL caches from codebase. > >> > Let's discuss this step with more details. > >> > 1. What is expected behaviour if an old thin client requests creation of > >> > LOCAL cache on the newest ignite cluster? > >> > 2. Should we completely remove LOCAL caches support in thin clients > >> (i.e. > >> > pyignite) before 2.13 release? > >> > > >> > вт, 14 сент. 2021 г. в 10:11, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > >> > > >> > > I proposed the following plan: > >> > > > >> > > 1. 2.12 - deprecation of LOCAL caches. > >> > > 2. 2.13 - complete removal LOCAL caches from codebase. > >> > > > >> > > > 13 сент. 2021 г., в 13:30, Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> > >> > > написал(а): > >> > > > > >> > > > I personally support deprecation, but we should at least have a > >> plan. > >> > > > I suppose that putting annotations and removing documentation are > >> not > >> > > > enough. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > пн, 13 сент. 2021 г. в 13:22, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org>: > >> > > > > >> > > >> Ivan, > >> > > >> > >> > > >> I don't think we can remove LOCAL caches at the nearest time, so > >> there > >> > > >> is no plan for that. I can only imagine a single release that will > >> > > >> contain all the breaking changes we want to apply in 2.x version. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> My point here is only about deprecation: > >> > > >> - there are a lot of motivation points to remove written in this > >> > thread; > >> > > >> - I always hear from the support team that they do not recommend > >> using > >> > > >> local caches; > >> > > >> - I haven't seen any bugs fixed for a long time for local caches > >> > > >> (suppose that we are not maintaining them); > >> > > >> > >> > > >> I just want to make sure that all these points are reflected in the > >> > > >> code base, so propose to mark them as deprecated. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 11:29, Ivan Daschinsky < > >> ivanda...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Hi, Maxim. And what is the plan of removing this functionality? > >> And I > >> > > >> also > >> > > >>> have some questions regarding deprecation in binary protocol > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Currently thin client binary protocol > >> > > >>> 1. Does support LOCAL caches > >> > > >>> 2. Does not support node filters. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> I can hardly imagine the usefulness of this feature on thin > >> clients, > >> > > >>> especially with partition awareness, but nevertheless. > >> > > >>> What is expected behaviour if this feature is removed from newest > >> > > version > >> > > >>> of Apache Ignite server and and and old client is requesting > >> > > >>> creation of LOCAL cache? > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> вс, 12 сент. 2021 г. в 15:10, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org > >> >: > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>>> Folks, > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> Let's get back to the discussion of obsolete LOCAL caches since a > >> > lot > >> > > >>>> of time has passed since the last discussion. > >> > > >>>> I've created an issue [1] for deprecation. Let's deprecate them > >> at > >> > > >>>> least at the next 2.12 release. > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> WDYT? > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15499 > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 at 20:59, Valentin Kulichenko > >> > > >>>> <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> Guys, > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> Use cases for local caches are rare, but they definitely exist. > >> I > >> > > >> don't > >> > > >>>>> think it's a very good idea to deprecate this functionality at > >> this > >> > > >>>> point. > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> At the same point, it's obviously not the most critical part of > >> the > >> > > >>>>> product, so maintaining the whole separate implementation for > >> it is > >> > > >>>>> probably an overkill. We had exact same story with replicated > >> > caches > >> > > >> btw > >> > > >>>> - > >> > > >>>>> they were implemented separately which caused maintainability > >> > > >> issues, and > >> > > >>>>> we ended up removing this separate implementation. If we have > >> the > >> > > >> same > >> > > >>>>> situation here, let's use the same solution. > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> -Val > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:05 AM Dmitry Pavlov < > >> > dpavlov....@gmail.com > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>>> wrote: > >> > > >>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Hi Dmitriy, > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> I would like to stress this: I'm not saying local cache it > >> > > >> useless. I'm > >> > > >>>>>> supposing it is not used widely. I want to figure out if I'm > >> > > >> mistaking. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> All folks involved into user list says it is not used, so why > >> not > >> > > >> to > >> > > >>>>>> deprecate? If we make a mistake, somebody will come to user > >> list > >> > > >> and > >> > > >>>> say, > >> > > >>>>>> 'Hey, why did you deprecate this, it is used for... in my > >> project' > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Being very experienced Igniter you probably know real life > >> usage > >> > > >>>> examples. > >> > > >>>>>> And I appreciate if you or somebody else in community could > >> share > >> > > >> it. > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> Sincerely, > >> > > >>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> пт, 27 июл. 2018 г. в 1:04, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >> > > >> dsetrak...@apache.org>: > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>> Guys, > >> > > >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>> I just want to make sure we are all on the same page. The main > >> > > >> use > >> > > >>>> case > >> > > >>>>>> for > >> > > >>>>>>> LOCAL caches is to have a local hash map querable with SQL and > >> > > >>>>>>> automatically persisted to a 3rd party DB. > >> > > >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>> I want to discourage people from saying "nobody needs some > >> > > >> feature". > >> > > >>>> None > >> > > >>>>>>> of the people in this discussion are users of any features - > >> we > >> > > >> are > >> > > >>>> all > >> > > >>>>>>> developers of the features. Instead of guessing whether to > >> > > >> deprecate > >> > > >>>>>>> something or not, I would actually see if it is even worth a > >> > > >>>> discussion. > >> > > >>>>>>> How much effort is required to fix the bug found in the LOCAL > >> > > >> cache? > >> > > >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>> D. > >> > > >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Dmitry Pavlov < > >> > > >>>> dpavlov....@gmail.com> > >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> Hi Alexey, > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> There is nothing to be sorry about :) Сommunity appreciates > >> an > >> > > >>>>>>> alternative > >> > > >>>>>>>> vision, this allows us to make as informed decisions as it > >> > > >>>> possible. > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> Thank you for finding this fact, it is very interesting. > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> I'm not sure all these examples were prepared by experienced > >> > > >> Ignite > >> > > >>>>>>> users. > >> > > >>>>>>>> So idea of deprecation may have one more argument. > >> Deprecation > >> > > >> will > >> > > >>>>>> help > >> > > >>>>>>> us > >> > > >>>>>>>> to inform users about LOCAL cache: Probably local cache is > >> not > >> > > >> what > >> > > >>>>>> they > >> > > >>>>>>>> need. > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> Sincerely, > >> > > >>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> чт, 26 июл. 2018 г. в 16:57, Alexey Zinoviev < > >> > > >>>> zaleslaw....@gmail.com>: > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Sorry, guys, I'll put my 1 cent > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> I'd like this idea "Implement LOCAL caches as PARTITIONED > >> > > >> caches > >> > > >>>>>> over > >> > > >>>>>>>> the > >> > > >>>>>>>>> local node." > >> > > >>>>>>>>> It make sense for examples/testing in pseudo-distributed > >> mode > >> > > >>>> and so > >> > > >>>>>>> far. > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> But I think that the deprecation based on user-list mentions > >> > > >> is a > >> > > >>>>>> wrong > >> > > >>>>>>>>> way. Please look here > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >> > >> > https://github.com/search?q=%22CacheMode.LOCAL%22+%26+ignite&type=Code > >> > > >>>>>>>>> There a lot of hello world examples with LOCAL mode. > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> And of course, we can ask about that on user-list, not here, > >> > > >> to > >> > > >>>> vote > >> > > >>>>>>> for > >> > > >>>>>>>>> the deprecation like this. > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> 2018-07-26 11:23 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov < > >> > > >> voze...@gridgain.com > >> > > >>>>> : > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> I meant LOCAL + non-LOCAL transactions of course. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:42 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dsetrak...@apache.org> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Vladimir, > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that a user cannot span more than one > >> > > >>>> local > >> > > >>>>>>> cache > >> > > >>>>>>>>> in a > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> cross cache LOCAL transactions. This is extremely > >> > > >> surprising > >> > > >>>> to > >> > > >>>>>> me, > >> > > >>>>>>>> as > >> > > >>>>>>>>> it > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> would require almost no effort to support it. As far as > >> > > >>>> mixing > >> > > >>>>>> the > >> > > >>>>>>>>> local > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> caches with distributed caches, then I agree, cross-cache > >> > > >>>>>>>> transactions > >> > > >>>>>>>>> do > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> not make sense. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I am not sure why deprecating local caches has become a > >> > > >>>> pressing > >> > > >>>>>>>>> issue. I > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> can see that there are a few bugs, but why not just fix > >> > > >> them > >> > > >>>> and > >> > > >>>>>>> move > >> > > >>>>>>>>> on? > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Can someone explain why supporting LOCAL caches is such a > >> > > >>>> burden? > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, I am not completely opposed to > >> > > >> deprecating > >> > > >>>>>> LOCAL > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> caches. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I just want to know why. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> D. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Vladimir Ozerov < > >> > > >>>>>>>>> voze...@gridgain.com> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dima, > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL cache adds very little value to the product. It > >> > > >>>> doesn't > >> > > >>>>>>>> support > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cross-cache transactions, consumes a lot of memory, > >> > > >> much > >> > > >>>> slower > >> > > >>>>>>>> than > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> any > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> widely-used concurrent hash map. Let's go the same way > >> > > >> as > >> > > >>>> Java > >> > > >>>>>> - > >> > > >>>>>>>> mark > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cache as "deprecated for removal", and then remove it > >> > > >> in > >> > > >>>> 3.0. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:10 PM Dmitrii Ryabov < > >> > > >>>>>>>>> somefire...@gmail.com > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 to make LOCAL as filtered PARTITIONED cache. I > >> > > >> think > >> > > >>>> it > >> > > >>>>>>> would > >> > > >>>>>>>> be > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> much > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> easier and faster than fixing all bugs. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-07-25 11:51 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dsetrak...@apache.org > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> : > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would stay away from deprecating such huge > >> > > >> pieces as > >> > > >>>> a > >> > > >>>>>>> whole > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> LOCAL > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cache. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In retrospect, we should probably not even have > >> > > >> LOCAL > >> > > >>>>>> caches, > >> > > >>>>>>>> but > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> now I > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> am > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain that it is used by many users. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would do one of the following, whichever one is > >> > > >>>> easier: > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Fix the issues found with LOCAL caches, > >> > > >> including > >> > > >>>>>>>>> persistence > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> support > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Implement LOCAL caches as PARTITIONED caches > >> > > >> over > >> > > >>>> the > >> > > >>>>>>>> local > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> node. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case, we would have to hide any > >> > > >>>>>> distribution-related > >> > > >>>>>>>>> config > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> from > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> users, like affinity function, for example. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Valentin > >> > > >> Kulichenko < > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds like the main drawback of LOCAL cache > >> > > >> is > >> > > >>>> that > >> > > >>>>>>> it's > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separately and therefore has to be maintained > >> > > >>>> separately. > >> > > >>>>>>> If > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> that's > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only issue, why not keep LOCAL cache mode on > >> > > >> public > >> > > >>>> API, > >> > > >>>>>>> but > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> implement > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a PARTITIONED cache with a node filter > >> > > >> forcefully > >> > > >>>> set? > >> > > >>>>>>>>> That's > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> similar > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we do with REPLICATED caches which are > >> > > >> actually > >> > > >>>>>>>>> PARTITIONED > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> with > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of backups. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This way we fix the issues described by Stan and > >> > > >>>> don't > >> > > >>>>>> have > >> > > >>>>>>>> to > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> deprecate > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:53 AM Stanislav > >> > > >> Lukyanov < > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stanlukya...@gmail.com> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters, > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’d like to start a discussion about the > >> > > >>>> deprecation of > >> > > >>>>>>> the > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> LOCAL > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> caches. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL caches are an edge-case functionality > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven’t done any formal analysis, but from my > >> > > >>>>>>> experience > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> LOCAL > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> caches > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are needed very rarely, if ever. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think most usages of LOCAL caches I’ve seen > >> > > >> were > >> > > >>>>>>> misuses: > >> > > >>>>>>>>> the > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> users > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually needed a simple HashMap, or an actual > >> > > >>>>>>> PARTITIONED > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> cache. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL caches are easy to implement on top of > >> > > >>>>>> PARTITIONED > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If one requires a LOCAL cache (which is itself > >> > > >>>>>>>> questionable, > >> > > >>>>>>>>> as > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above) it is quite easy to implement one on > >> > > >> top of > >> > > >>>>>>>>> PARTITIONED > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cache. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A node filter of form `node -> node.id > >> > > >>>>>>>>> ().equals(localNodeId)` > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> is > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make the cache to be stored on the node that > >> > > >>>> created > >> > > >>>>>>> it. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Locality of access to the cache (i.e. making it > >> > > >>>>>>> unavailable > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> from > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> other > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes) can be achieved on the application > >> > > >> level. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL caches are hard to maintain > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A quick look at the open issues mentioning > >> > > >> “local > >> > > >>>>>> cache” > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> suggests > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is a corner case for implementation of > >> > > >> many > >> > > >>>> Ignite > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> features: > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20% > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> 22local%20cache%22%20and%20%20project%20%3D%20IGNITE% > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20and%20status%20%3D%20open > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In particular, a recent SO question brought up > >> > > >> the > >> > > >>>> fact > >> > > >>>>>>>> that > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> caches > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t support native persistence: > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51511892/how-to- > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> configure-persistent-storage-for-apache-ignite-cache > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having to ask ourselves “how does it play with > >> > > >>>> LOCAL > >> > > >>>>>>>> caches” > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> every > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> time > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write any code in Ignite seems way to much for > >> > > >> the > >> > > >>>>>>> benefits > >> > > >>>>>>>>> we > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> gain > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proposal > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s deprecate LOCAL caches in 2.x and remove > >> > > >>>> them in > >> > > >>>>>>> 3.0. > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a part of deprecation let’s do the > >> > > >> following: > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Put @Deprecated on the CacheMode.LOCAL > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Print a warning every time a LOCAL cache is > >> > > >>>> created > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Remove all mentions of LOCAL caches from > >> > > >>>> readme.io, > >> > > >>>>>> if > >> > > >>>>>>>>> any, > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> except > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the page about cache modes > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - On the page about cache modes explain that > >> > > >> LOCAL > >> > > >>>> is > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> deprecated > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be replaced with a PARTITIONED cache with a > >> > > >> node > >> > > >>>> filter > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stan > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>>> > >> > > >>>>>> > >> > > >>>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> -- > >> > > >>> Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy > > > > > -- > Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
