ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Applicability of term 'cache' to Apache Ignite
Date Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:20:32 GMT
Although I agree that this change is disruptive, can we just entertain
Ilya's idea for a bit? What if we were designing Ignite from scratch, what
different name would we give to the IgniteCache abstraction? Ilya suggested
"IgniteSpace", but I do not like it as it sounds too similar to JavaSpaces
[1], which is an obsolete technology at this point.

Any other ideas?

[1] https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/java/javaspaces-140665.html

D.

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:27 AM Ivan Rakov <ivan.glukos@gmail.com> wrote:

> Agree with Vladimir here.
>
> Let's stick to the "principle of least astonishment" - all current users
> will be surprised if we'll rename IgniteCache, new users won't be
> greatly surprised due to compliance with JCache.
>
> Best Regards,
> Ivan Rakov
>
> On 16.10.2018 15:53, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> > What is the ultimate goal of all these changes? While I agree that term
> > "cache" might be a bit outdated at the moment, there is nothing
> > fundamentally wrong with - data is still being cached in memory with an
> > option to persist it on disk. We should remember, that legacy and
> previous
> > user experience is of great importance for users. And disruptive changes
> > such as rename of a basic concept may make adoption of a new versions
> > harder for users, with very questionable benefits on the other side.
> >
> > As far as wrappers, personally I do not support this idea. Both "cache"
> and
> > "sql" are access methods to some information ("space"), rather than
> > wrappers around it. Moreover, it is hard to say whether we will have SQL
> > API at all, because this is big effort with not very clear value,
> provided
> > that there are industrial interfaces (JDBC, ODBC).
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:23 PM Stanislav Lukyanov <
> stanlukyanov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> How about separating our JCache implementation from the core of the
> >> probuct.
> >>
> >> Currently IgniteCache is the heart of Ignite. It is the basic storage
> unit.
> >> At the same time, it is the direct implementation of the JCache API,
> >> and some of the JCache features align somewhat awkwardly with Ignite
> >> concepts.
> >>
> >> Would be nice to have something like IgniteSpace as our core component,
> >> and have other components built on top of it as wrappers providing
> various
> >> APIs.
> >> For example
> >> - IgniteSpace itself is a distributed storage unit, that is partitioned,
> >> that has affinity, etc;
> >> note that it doesn’t have to have ANY particular API to add data, even
> >> key-value
> >> - IgniteCache is a wrapper around IgniteSpace that allows to store
> >> key-value pairs and implements JCache API
> >> - IgniteSql (we’re doing it eventually, right?) is a wrapper around
> >> IgniteSpace that allows to store SQL tables and implements ANSI SQL
> >> - IgniteQueue is a wrapper that implements Queue
> >> and so on.
> >>
> >> WDYT?
> >>
> >> Stan
> >>
> >> From: Ilya Lantukh
> >> Sent: 15 октября 2018 г. 14:49
> >> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> >> Subject: Applicability of term 'cache' to Apache Ignite
> >>
> >> Hi Igniters,
> >>
> >> I would like to rise a question how we use the term *'cache'* in Ignite
> and
> >> how it corresponds to terminology in IT industry in general.
> >>
> >>  From wikipedia:
> >> In computing <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing>, a *cache* /kæʃ/
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English> *kash*
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Pronunciation_respelling_key>, is
a
> >> hardware or software component that stores data so that future requests
> for
> >> that data can be served faster; the data stored in a cache might be the
> >> result of an earlier computation or a copy of data stored elsewhere. [1]
> >>
> >> When the first version of Ignite was released, this term was correct. We
> >> positioned Ignite mostly as an intermediate storage layer between
> >> application and a database, designed to make data access faster.
> >>
> >> However, since addition of native persistence we started to call Ignite
> a
> >> "memory-centric database", and as far as I know, some organizations now
> use
> >> it as a primary data storage, without underlying database. In this case,
> >> calling our storage unit a *'cache'* causes unnecessary confusion.
> >>
> >> Thus, I suggest to rename IgniteCache in Ignite 3.0 to something that
> would
> >> fit both use-cases.
> >> Personally I like the term IgniteSpace.
> >>
> >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache_(computing)
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >> Ilya
> >>
> >>
>
>

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