Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ignite.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+0=VoWz-MyUYxBoMiY1Ne4oY5y2XdRn21qkZSC_FU1Uoq-NCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+NutAM5xcCpANYf=UsjYtxVnoEt1u4qfibi7V7v=r3ueeZY0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKoNANv0GUD6ih06S7AbpOR+he1B10kN+j8njKXJsJGowDGi8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABDss3j1pUXcpwubjhVo1G3wZ0g+Vw0=jSw4N4-fuede_TJ+Zw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+0=VoWz-MyUYxBoMiY1Ne4oY5y2XdRn21qkZSC_FU1Uoq-NCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:17:32 +0300
Message-ID: 
 <CABDss3i0P_JBP-f9-6xJeUmVZcyJv6fcumBSusVOVviYTFXj5g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New method in IgniteCache API.
From: Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
To: dev@ignite.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0bd380f8b29b05295b081e

--94eb2c0bd380f8b29b05295b081e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Still not sure how they are similar:

TopologyValidator is invoked on every topology change and provides a
boolean result whether topology is ready to be used. Currently there is no
way to mark a 'failed' topology as valid without another topology change.

This new method that Vladimir suggests resets the partition state after it
has been lost, it does not invoke topology validator and does not need a
topology change to work.

2016-01-15 10:59 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:

> Alexey,
>
> All I am saying is that the difference between topology validator and this
> new method becomes very subtle. One just looks like a subset of another. Am
> I wrong?
>
> D.
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > Are you suggesting that we need to pass partitions state to a topology
> > validator so that user needs to check it manually. I do not think this is
> > convenient for an end-user and like the approach with the policy that
> > Vladimir suggested better.
> >
> > Raul,
> >
> > I assume you want to add IgniteCacheEx interface? How one would get it?
> > Another thing that crossed my mind was that it may be more efficient to
> > reset the state of multiple caches simultaneously, so maybe we should add
> > this method to Ignite and pass a list of cache names?
> >
>

--94eb2c0bd380f8b29b05295b081e--