I think we should just throw an exception in this case. Providing two configurations for one cache looks like incorrect usage for me.
-Val On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Alexey Goncharuk < > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In this case, since user called getOrCreateCache(), Ignite did not > create a > > cache because it already existed and also did not throw an exception > > because method should return existing cache if a cache with the same name > > already exists. > > > > We may want to implement a check to verify that cache configurations > match, > > but I have no idea how to compare cache configurations given that they > may > > contain user-defined objects, such as store factories. > > > > Can we to the least compare what we can and skip whatever we cannot? For > example, for factories, we can make sure that the class names match. > > I definitely think that we need some level of validation here. Users keep > getting burned on this issue. > > Thoughts? > > > > > > 2015-08-12 9:45 GMT-07:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > After looking at the comment in the IGNITE-1240 [1], I got confused on > > how > > > Ignite configuration works. It seems to me that we have a big usability > > > issue there. > > > > > > For example, can someone tell me what happens now if a user provides > the > > > configuration in an XML file and then also specifies the configuration > in > > > code? > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1240 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > D. > > > > > >
