ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prachi Garg <pg...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Thin Client lib: Python
Date Wed, 25 Jul 2018 20:25:59 GMT
Hi Dmitry M,

I am resposible for managing the Ignite documentation. At some point we
will merge the python documentation on github into the main Ignite
documentation. Currently, I am trying to restructure our thin client
documentation in a way that it (thin client documentation) is consistent
for all supported languages - Java, Node.js, Python etc.

I looked at the python document on github. Under the :mod:`~pyignite.api`
section,  I see all the components - cache config, key value, sql, binary
types - but there are no code snippets. Is it possible for you describe
these components with code examples?

See for example -
https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/java-thin-client-api#section-sql-queries
where the SQL Queries section explains, with example, how the thin client
SQL API can be used.

Similarly, please see -
https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/java-thin-client-security
https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/java-thin-client-high-availability
https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/java-thin-client-api

Thanks,
-Prachi


On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
wrote:

> I am still confused. Let's work through an example. Suppose I have a cache
> named "my_cache" and I want to put an entry with key "a" and value "1".
>
> In Java, this code will look like this:
>
>
> > *IgniteCache<...> myCache = ignite.cache("my-cache");myCache.put("a",
> 1);*
>
>
> How will the same code look in Python?
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Dmitry Melnichuk <
> dmitry.melnichuk@nobitlost.com> wrote:
>
> > Igor,
> >
> > That is a very good point. It just did not cross my mind during the
> > implementation of this function, that the cache identifier can be
> abstract.
> > I will fix that.
> >
> >
> > On 07/26/2018 01:46 AM, Igor Sapego wrote:
> >
> >> Well, at least name should be changed, IMO, as the API function name
> >> should say what we do, and not how we do it. For example, cache_id()
> >> looks better to me than hashcode().
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Igor
> >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message