[infinispan-dev] New Cache Entry Notifications
Hello all, I have been working with notifications and most recently I have come to look into events generated when a new entry is created. Now normally I would just expect a CacheEntryCreatedEvent to be raised. However we currently raise a CacheEntryModifiedEvent event and then a CacheEntryCreatedEvent. I notice that there are comments around the code saying that tests require both to be fired. I am wondering if anyone has an objection to only raising a CacheEntryCreatedEvent on a new cache entry being created. Does anyone know why we raise both currently? Was it just so the PutKeyValueCommand could more ignorantly just raise the CacheEntryModified pre Event? Any input would be appreciated, Thanks. - Will ___ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
Re: [infinispan-dev] New Cache Entry Notifications
On Jan 23, 2014, at 5:48 PM, William Burns wrote: > Hello all, > > I have been working with notifications and most recently I have come > to look into events generated when a new entry is created. Now > normally I would just expect a CacheEntryCreatedEvent to be raised. > However we currently raise a CacheEntryModifiedEvent event and then a > CacheEntryCreatedEvent. I notice that there are comments around the > code saying that tests require both to be fired. it doesn't sound right to me: modified is different than created. > > I am wondering if anyone has an objection to only raising a > CacheEntryCreatedEvent on a new cache entry being created. Does > anyone know why we raise both currently? Was it just so the > PutKeyValueCommand could more ignorantly just raise the > CacheEntryModified pre Event? > > Any input would be appreciated, Thanks. Cheers, -- Mircea Markus Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) ___ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
Re: [infinispan-dev] Integration between HotRod and OGM
On 22 Jan 2014 16:10, "Pedro Ruivo" wrote: > > > > On 01/22/2014 01:58 PM, Dan Berindei wrote: > > > > > > It would also require us to keep a Set for each group, with the keys > > associated with that group. As such, I'm not sure it would be a lot > > easier to implement (correctly) than FineGrainedAtomicMap. > > > > > > Dan, I didn't understand why do we need to keep a Set. Can you > elaborate? We'd need some way to keep track of the keys that are part of the group, iterating over the entire cache for every getGroup() call would be way too slow. ___ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
