IGNITE-3999: Design discussion

[Amir Akhmedov]

Hi Igniters,

I was looking into ticket IGNITE-3999 and I have a concern on this, can you
please advise what will be the correct way to solve it. As of today, SQL
fields are defined as setFields(LinkedHashMap<String, String> fields), with
introduction of case insensitive property need to create a new POJO
e.g. QueryField(String
type, boolean caseInsensitive). So, to keep backward compatibility we can
introduce a new method e.g. setQueryFields(LinkedHashMap<String,
QueryField> fields), in my opinion it looks like counter-intuitive with
existing setFields method. Another possible way, this change can be done
with changing the generic type of setFields (which will not be backward
compatible) and released in Ignite 2.0.
Please advise on this, or maybe you have an alternative solutions?

--
Sincerely Yours Amir Akhmedov

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Hi Amir,

Having POJO class QueryField looks like a good idea to me. Because we will
be able to encapsulate more field information into it over time. E.g. we
can add "keyField" flag for DML there.

I would even think about removing map from method signature in favor of
simple list/array:

void setFields(QueryField...);

Vladimir.

07 нояб. 2016 г. 7:32 пользователь "Amir Akhmedov" <[hidden email]>
написал:

Hi Igniters,

I was looking into ticket IGNITE-3999 and I have a concern on this, can you
please advise what will be the correct way to solve it. As of today, SQL
fields are defined as setFields(LinkedHashMap<String, String> fields), with
introduction of case insensitive property need to create a new POJO
e.g. QueryField(String
type, boolean caseInsensitive). So, to keep backward compatibility we can
introduce a new method e.g. setQueryFields(LinkedHashMap<String,
QueryField> fields), in my opinion it looks like counter-intuitive with
existing setFields method. Another possible way, this change can be done
with changing the generic type of setFields (which will not be backward
compatible) and released in Ignite 2.0.
Please advise on this, or maybe you have an alternative solutions?

--
Sincerely Yours Amir Akhmedov

[Sergi]

I don't think per field configuration makes a big sense. I would just add
another property to QueryEntity like setCaseInsensitiveFields(Set<String>
fields).

Sergi



2016-11-07 9:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Amir,
>
> Having POJO class QueryField looks like a good idea to me. Because we will
> be able to encapsulate more field information into it over time. E.g. we
> can add "keyField" flag for DML there.
>
> I would even think about removing map from method signature in favor of
> simple list/array:
>
> void setFields(QueryField...);
>
> Vladimir.
>
> 07 нояб. 2016 г. 7:32 пользователь "Amir Akhmedov" <
> [hidden email]>
> написал:
>
> Hi Igniters,
>
> I was looking into ticket IGNITE-3999 and I have a concern on this, can you
> please advise what will be the correct way to solve it. As of today, SQL
> fields are defined as setFields(LinkedHashMap<String, String> fields),
> with
> introduction of case insensitive property need to create a new POJO
> e.g. QueryField(String
> type, boolean caseInsensitive). So, to keep backward compatibility we can
> introduce a new method e.g. setQueryFields(LinkedHashMap<String,
> QueryField> fields), in my opinion it looks like counter-intuitive with
> existing setFields method. Another possible way, this change can be done
> with changing the generic type of setFields (which will not be backward
> compatible) and released in Ignite 2.0.
> Please advise on this, or maybe you have an alternative solutions?
>
> --
> Sincerely Yours Amir Akhmedov
>

[Denis Magda]

I do support Sergi’s proposal. We already set aliases (setAliases(…)) and indexes (setIndexes(…)) in a similar way.

—
Denis

> On Nov 7, 2016, at 12:33 AM, Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I don't think per field configuration makes a big sense. I would just add
> another property to QueryEntity like setCaseInsensitiveFields(Set<String>
> fields).
>
> Sergi
>
>
>
> 2016-11-07 9:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Hi Amir,
>>
>> Having POJO class QueryField looks like a good idea to me. Because we will
>> be able to encapsulate more field information into it over time. E.g. we
>> can add "keyField" flag for DML there.
>>
>> I would even think about removing map from method signature in favor of
>> simple list/array:
>>
>> void setFields(QueryField...);
>>
>> Vladimir.
>>
>> 07 нояб. 2016 г. 7:32 пользователь "Amir Akhmedov" <
>> [hidden email]>
>> написал:
>>
>> Hi Igniters,
>>
>> I was looking into ticket IGNITE-3999 and I have a concern on this, can you
>> please advise what will be the correct way to solve it. As of today, SQL
>> fields are defined as setFields(LinkedHashMap<String, String> fields),
>> with
>> introduction of case insensitive property need to create a new POJO
>> e.g. QueryField(String
>> type, boolean caseInsensitive). So, to keep backward compatibility we can
>> introduce a new method e.g. setQueryFields(LinkedHashMap<String,
>> QueryField> fields), in my opinion it looks like counter-intuitive with
>> existing setFields method. Another possible way, this change can be done
>> with changing the generic type of setFields (which will not be backward
>> compatible) and released in Ignite 2.0.
>> Please advise on this, or maybe you have an alternative solutions?
>>
>> --
>> Sincerely Yours Amir Akhmedov
>>