ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Missing ways to get access to Ignite CacheEntry
Date Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:36:56 GMT


On 12/21/2015 11:15 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Denis Magda <dmagda@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
>> Why it shouldn't work?
>> If client receives an entry that has a reference to the entry with
>> version, transferred from a server as well as a part of the response, then
>> unwrap(...) should work.
>> Isn't this feasible to implement?
>>
> The reason is consistency. If getEntry(…) can be unwrapped on the client
> side, then all the query results should be un-wrappable as well, which
> means that we have to always carry the cache version, even if user does not
> need it.
The proposal is to add getEntry(...) method exactly for the cases when 
someone needs an entry with a version on a client.
In all other cases (queries, etc.) the version won't be a part of a 
response.

Right, this is inconsistent but if to document everything well then the 
user will only benefit from the new getEntry(...) method.
CacheEntry with version is already can be unwrapped from specific places 
that are listed in its documentation. We will just broaden the list.

--
Denis
>
> My preference is that unwrap(..) on the client side should result in
> UnsupportedOperationException(…).
>
>
>> --
>> Denis
>>
>>
>> On 12/21/2015 10:59 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>>
>>> Again, my issue is with unwrap method. Are we all in agreement that
>>> unwrap(…) will not work on the client side?
>>>
>>> D.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Denis Magda <dmagda@gridgain.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually I think that Andrey's proposal on addition of
>>>> IgniteCache.getEntry(k) sounds natural.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any platform limitation that will prevent us from loading an
>>>> entry with its version from a remote node when such a particular method
>>>> is
>>>> used?
>>>> I think that it's feasible to support it and in addition I would add on
>>>> more method to the API - IgniteCache.getAllEntries(keysSet).
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Denis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2015 2:05 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Andrey Kornev <andrewkornev@hotmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How would I know how to interpret the returned null?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we just have a simple getEntry(K) method that has semantics of
the
>>>>>> regular get(K)? Why invent something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we do this, how would you unwrap such entry on the client side?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrey
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: dsetrakyan@apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:55:47 -0800
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Missing ways to get access to Ignite CacheEntry
>>>>>>> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Andrey Kornev <
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> andrewkornev@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I understand that we're talking about Ignite CacheEntry and
not
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JCache's
>>>>>>> CacheEntry that has no version property to speak of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I don't understand why the method is named localEntry()?
What
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> "local" mean in this context? Does it mean that I can only
use it on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> primary node for a given key? What would happen if I call this
method
>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>> non-primary node? And what would I do if I needed the entry (along
>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>> valid version it contains) on a non-primary node?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the node is either primary or backup, then you will get
the entry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> back.
>>>>>> Otherwise, you will get null.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: dsetrakyan@apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:19:01 -0800
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Missing ways to get access to Ignite CacheEntry
>>>>>>>>> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Andrey Kornev <
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> andrewkornev@hotmail.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dmitriy,
>>>>>>>>>> Based on what criteria does one determine which information
is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> redundant
>>>>>>>>> and which is not?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To me, if an API declares a method getSomeRedundantInfo(),
then the
>>>>>>>>>> implementer has no choice, but to comply with the
contract and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>> info. One can't just return a null or ignore it some other
way,
>>>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> because it appears to have some performance impact.
>>>>>>>> Andrey, the CacheEntry is not the JCache entry, but rather
the
>>>>>>>>> internal
>>>>>>> Ignite entry that you can get when unwrapping the JCache entry.
The
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> unwrapping, obviously, can only happen on the server side.
>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I
>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> suggesting that we also add a localEntry(K) method which
will
>>>>>>>>> provide the
>>>>>>> entry API on the server side directly (not from iterator or EP).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now I understand that the version() method currently does
not work
>>>>>>>>> properly
>>>>>>>> on the server side, but this is something we can easily fix.
>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Besides, the overhead of the version number may turn
out to be
>>>>>>>>> negligible
>>>>>>>>> when benchmarked. Most likely there will be near zero
overhead
>>>>>>>>> (due to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> way the network stack packs the bytes into the ethernet frames).
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> workaround for the broken API however may be much more expensive
in
>>>>>>>> terms
>>>>>>>>> of performance and user experience.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please let's keep the API consistent and predictable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> Andrey
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: dsetrakyan@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:41:00 -0800
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Missing ways to get access to Ignite
CacheEntry
>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The main issue with returning version is sending
redundant
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the wire. What if we added a method IgniteCache.localEntry(K)
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> return a local entry instance with a version. You would only
be
>>>>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> invoke this method on the server node (not client).
>>>>>>>>>> Would this work for you?
>>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Andrey Kornev
<
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> andrewkornev@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not suggesting to have every cache read
operation return a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> CacheEntry.
>>>>>>>>>>> The "classical" GridGain used to have a getEntry(key)
method
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>> useful. The current version of Ignite provides virtually
no
>>>>>>>>>>> way of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> obtaining a cache entry except thru an iterator,
or using an
>>>>>>>> EntryProcessor
>>>>>>>>>>> invocation which seems more like a hack.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the question of what's stored in Ignite
cache and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-compute,
>>>>>>>>>>> it is really an off-topic. It just came about
as we were
>>>>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>> to work around the issue with Ignite query not returning
cache
>>>>>>>>>>> entries'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> version numbers in the result iterator. (There is
now a ticket
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> addresses this issue:
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2202
>>>>>>>>>>> )This is when we realized that there is no longer
any way in
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> retrieve the CacheEntry by its key.
>>>>>>>>>> But for the sake of completeness I quickly go over
the entire
>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>> case,
>>>>>>>> because it seems I wasn't clear enough in the previous post.
>>>>>>>>>> Ignite cache holds the data entries that are used
as the input
>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> expensive computation. The data in the cache gets updated
from
>>>>>>>>>>> time to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> time, the computation only needs to be re-run
>>>>>>>>>> - on-demand -- when a user asks for the computed
value and
>>>>>>>>>>>> - the pre-computed value is obsolete -- the
source cache data
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> updated since the last time the value was computed.
>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, we return the pre-computed value. Note
that we don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>> rerun the computation for each cache update! Only
when the
>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> asks
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it make it more clear now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Missing ways to get access to
Ignite CacheEntry
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: dmagda@gridgain.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:44:16 +0300
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I got you, thanks for the clarification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So since you're storing a computed value
in some local data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure
>>>>>>>>>>> what is stored in the Ignite cache as a value
in such a case?
>>>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>>>> should be something.
>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you (or can't you) store a version identifier
in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>> that is located in the Ignite cache? This should work
>>>>>>>>>> perfectly
>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> you use-case.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally I'm against adding CacheEntry
to a response of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> operation that happens over a cache (get, getAll,
SQL & Scan
>>>>>>>>>>>> queries).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This will add extra size to every response and
only in rare
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> someone will benefit from it.
>>>>>>>> However, what if we add a special configuration parameter
to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CacheConfiguration that will manage whether
CacheEntry has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>> as a part of a response or not? Igniters, what do you think
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> this?
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2015 9:09 AM, Andrey Kornev
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,In this case I used the term "caching"
in general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense,
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>> saving the computed value for later. I didn't mean the Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>> cache.Sorry
>>>>>>>>>>> about the confusion.Andrey
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         _____________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Denis Magda <dmagda@gridgain.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015
9:48 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Missing ways to get
access to Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CacheEntry
>>>>>>>>>>>> To:  <dev@ignite.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                        Hi Romain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      I'm a bit confused cause initially
you saying that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      /The value is computed on first
access and it is then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cached
>>>>>>>>>>>>      /and then you add that
>>>>>>>>      /One constraint is that the computed value is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serializable.
>>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>      /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      Ignite won't be able to store
a value of cache if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serialization
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>      supported for it by some reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      Please clarify here. Probably
I'm missing something from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>> description.
>>>>>>>>      --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      On 12/16/2015 6:21 PM, Andrey
Kornev wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      > Romain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      > I suggest you be very careful
using the invoke()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality. As
>>>>>>>>>>>> explained in this posting (and the follow-ups)
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >
>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ignite-dev/201511.mbox/%3CSNT147-W14D2736E1374450B685721CF000%40phx.gbl%3E
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      > the correct usage of the invoke() may be difficult, to
>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> politely.
>>>>>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      > @Denis Very briefly, the
use case is "conditional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-compute".
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a pretty expensive computation that
needs to be
>>>>>>>>>> applied to
>>>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>> entry on demand. The value is computed on first access and
it
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> cached along with the current version of the cache entry.
 The
>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>> be recomputed on next access only if the entry has
been
>>>>>>>>>>> modified.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>>>      > If anyone has a better idea how to achieve something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>> please do share! One constraint is that the computed value
is
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> serializable.
>>>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      > Cheers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      > Andrey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >> Subject: Re: Missing
ways to get access to Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CacheEntry
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>      >> From: dmagda@gridgain.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015
16:11:48 +0300
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >> Romain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >> If it's implemented
this way for now it doesn't mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>>>      >> enhance the API for other use cases
;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >> As I said presently it's supported
for limited number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >> by performance reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >> Please go ahead and
try invoke/invokeAll and if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> fine for
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >> you we can keep discussing
what to do next.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >> On 12/16/2015 1:53
PM, Romain Gilles wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>> Hi Denis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>> Thanks for you
replay. And sorry to not double check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> before.
>>>>>>>> I see that
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>> if I want to work with
CacheEntry, I need to use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> invoke
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> method in order
>>>>>>>>>>      >>> to return the CacheEntry. This
is the way I should do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> sounds like
>>>>>>>>>>      >>> complicated for "just" getting
an entry. But if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> the way I
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>> will do it like that. I
was just think that it could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>> use case
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>> and therefore provide it
as a shortcut.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>> Romain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>> Le mer. 16 déc.
2015 à 11:34, Denis Magda <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dmagda@gridgain.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> Hi Romain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> As the current
documentation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.cache.CacheEntry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> states it's possible
to get a reference to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CacheEntry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> only for methods that
are executed over local data
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> stored
>>>>>>>> on a node.
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> Among such methods
are invoke & invokeAll and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> randomEntry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> You probably can get a CacheEntry
and its non null
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>> a cache
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> iterator is in use
but the version will be 'null',
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>> as I
>>>>>>>>>> remember,
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> for those entries that
are loaded from remote nodes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> Presently Ignite
doesn't transfer the version from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remote
>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> part of response by
perform reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> Please elaborate
more on your particular use case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> API
>>>>>>>>>> you would
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> like to add in order
to support it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> On 12/16/2015
12:58 PM, Romain Gilles wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>> Hi Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>> I'm looking
for a way to get access to the Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CacheEntry.
>>>>>>>>>>>> For now
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>> is the
ways I found:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>>       -
Through the queris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>>       -
Through jsr 107 Cache Iterable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>>       -
Through jsr 107 Cache itterator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>>       -
Through IgniteCache::randomEntry()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>> If I remember
correctly it was possible to get the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CacheEntry
>>>>>>>>>>>> from a
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>> given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>> key in
old version of gridgain community
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>> version:
GridCacheProjection::entry(K key)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheEntry<K,V>
>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>> I think it could
be a good to introduce this
>>>>>>>>>>>> feature at
>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteCache
>>>>>>>>      >>>> level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>> Or maybe
there is an other way to do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>> Romain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Mime
View raw message