ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Ensure that builder approach is used for all setters in public API
Date Fri, 03 Feb 2017 08:08:41 GMT
Andrey,

This is very important change from usability standpoint. But my main
concern is changes to SPI *interfaces*. If we do so users who implemented
custom SPIs will have broken compatibility. On the other hand, I doubt
there will be too much affected users, and we break compilation in AI 2.0
anyway. So looks like we can go ahead with it.

Thoughts?

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> My only concern is MBean interfaces. These are not called from code, but
> from MBean viewers, and I'm not sure setters not returning voids will be
> properly treated as setters by these viewers. This needs to be checked.
>
> -Val
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Val,
> >
> > Yes, you are right. I don't think we should care about compilation
> > error on user side, as we break compatibility with previous versions.
> > But we talk about public interfaces and may be someone has some cons
> > or suggestions?
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrey,
> > >
> > > In which case compatibility is broken? If there is a method that
> returns
> > > void and you change it to return some type, it doesn't break anything,
> > > because currently nobody can assign the result of this method to a
> > > variable. I.e. in old code the returned value will be always ignored,
> > > therefore it can be of any type.
> > >
> > > Is there anything else that I'm missing?
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm working on IGNITE-4564 [1] to make our configuration classes and
> > SPI
> > > > classes more convenient.
> > > >
> > > > There is no problem to change return type in setter method signatures
> > > > and override methods in child child classes to make them return more
> > > > accurate type.
> > > >
> > > > But, I found that we have set methods in some of our interfaces and
> > > > changing its signature may broke compatibility with user
> > implementations.
> > > >
> > > > Here are example interfaces with setters:
> > > > org.apache.ignite.cache.eviction.fifo.FifoEvictionPolicyMBean
> > > > org.apache.ignite.cache.eviction.igfs.IgfsPerBlockLruEvictionPolicyM
> > > XBean
> > > > org.apache.ignite.cache.eviction.lru.LruEvictionPolicyMBean
> > > > org.apache.ignite.cache.eviction.sorted.SortedEvictionPolicyMBean
> > > > org.apache.ignite.spi.checkpoint.CheckpointSpi
> > > > org.apache.ignite.spi.collision.CollisionSpi
> > > > org.apache.ignite.spi.collision.fifoqueue.FifoQueueCollisionSpiMBean
> > > >
> > > > However we have interfaces with NO setters
> > > > org.apache.ignite.spi.loadbalancing.adaptive.
> > > > AdaptiveLoadBalancingSpiMBean.
> > > >
> > > > What can we do with it?
> > > > Change signature of setters without regarding compatibility? Or may
> be
> > it
> > > > is possible to remove setters from some interfaces?
> > > >
> > > > Thought?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4564
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > С уважением,
> > Машенков Андрей Владимирович
> > Тел. +7-921-932-61-82
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > Cerr: +7-921-932-61-82
> >
>

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