New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[WFLY-5520] More re: default-clustered-sfsb-cache, default-sfsb-cache #8610
Conversation
It might have been easiest to not change the meaning of the attributes at all. I don't think it provides that much of a value. That said, I also see why you wanted to do the change, and it's been in WildFly for some time, so reverting now would be even more of a mess. The solution described by Brian works for me. We'll have to make sure that it's mentioned in the documentation, though. |
@emmartins BTW you might want to take this for a spin to see how that plays with the migration tool and please revert the workaround currently we have in the tool for this issue. |
I forgot "4.3) This translation should be result in INFO logging informing the user as to what is happening" -- I'll update the PR. |
… cache attributes
5ce286d
to
47a295a
Compare
retest this please |
👍 This looks good to me. |
[WFLY-5520] More re: default-clustered-sfsb-cache, default-sfsb-cache
@pferraro @rhusar @n1hility @Ladicek WDYT? Wall of text begins...
In EAP 7 the meaning of the ejb3 subsystem default-sfsb-cache attribute has changed vs EAP 6.4, with another attribute, default-clustered-sfsb-cache deprecated and it's functionality mapped to the repurposed default-sfsb-cache and finally a third attribute introduced, default-sfsb-passivation-disabled-cache, whose semantics are the same as the EAP 6.4 meaning of default-sfsb-cache.
See description of #8481 for more on the validity of this mapping.
These changes introduce some compatibility and migration challenges, with various fixes trying to deal with these, but problems still remain. So I wanted to be very thorough and try to slay this beast.
Hard requirements:
Nice-to-have Requirements
Not Possible
The existence of “Not Possible #1” argues that “Nice-to-have #4” is a bad idea, since if you can do a write-attribute you would expect a consistent read-attribute.
Not doing “Nice-to-have #4” argues that “Nice-to-have #3” is a bad idea, since to an EAP 6.2+ user the two attributes were a pair. Being able to write default-clustered-sfsb-cache with EAP 6 semantics but then default-sfsb-cache has EAP 7 semantics would be confusing.
This confusion is lessened though in the case of add operations (“Nice-to-have #1 and #2”) as the presence of both parameters in the same operation provides useful context as to user intent.
Proposal:
4.1) In case of ambiguity in the add operation (i.e. all three params set with inconsistent values) then the operation should fail
4.2) The default-clustered-sfsb-cache param value will not be directly stored in the model.
4.3) This translation should be result in INFO logging informing the user as to what is happening
This solution meets Hard Requirements 1-4. It also allows Nice-to-have 1, 2 and 5. Nice-to-have 3 and 4 are not supported.
Hard Requirement 5 (console) is fine because default-clustered-sfsb-cache is not exposed by the console.