Starting templated cache from data streamer.

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Igniters,

Consider the following use case.
1) User configured cache template, but has never accessed it explicitly yet;
2) User calls Ignite.dataStreamer([cacheName]) - exception is thrown
because cache is not started.

I have a feeling that data streamer must have "getOrCreateCache" semantics
so that user do not have to pre-start cache explicitly to start loading
data to it.

Thoughts?

Vladimir.

[Atri Sharma]

I think it is a good idea but I wonder if it makes sense to also notify to
the user somehow that a cache was created or not by this function.

Why I feel that is necessary is because if we are creating caches most of
the time in the function to the user opaquely, it may lead to user
questioning the performance degradation (minor though it may be) since
creating a cache will be a tad more expensive than just getting it. It
would be worthwhile to atleast log so we can identify performance issues
later on.

If you are fine I can make ticket and assign it to myself.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> Consider the following use case.
> 1) User configured cache template, but has never accessed it explicitly
> yet;
> 2) User calls Ignite.dataStreamer([cacheName]) - exception is thrown
> because cache is not started.
>
> I have a feeling that data streamer must have "getOrCreateCache" semantics
> so that user do not have to pre-start cache explicitly to start loading
> data to it.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Vladimir.
>

--
Regards,

Atri
*l'apprenant*

[Atri Sharma]

I have created IGNITE -1066 for this.

Please see and comment.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think it is a good idea but I wonder if it makes sense to also notify to
> the user somehow that a cache was created or not by this function.
>
> Why I feel that is necessary is because if we are creating caches most of
> the time in the function to the user opaquely, it may lead to user
> questioning the performance degradation (minor though it may be) since
> creating a cache will be a tad more expensive than just getting it. It
> would be worthwhile to atleast log so we can identify performance issues
> later on.
>
> If you are fine I can make ticket and assign it to myself.
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Igniters,
>>
>> Consider the following use case.
>> 1) User configured cache template, but has never accessed it explicitly
>> yet;
>> 2) User calls Ignite.dataStreamer([cacheName]) - exception is thrown
>> because cache is not started.
>>
>> I have a feeling that data streamer must have "getOrCreateCache" semantics
>> so that user do not have to pre-start cache explicitly to start loading
>> data to it.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Vladimir.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> *l'apprenant*
>

--
Regards,

Atri
*l'apprenant*

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Atri,

I thought a little bit more about this. Calling "getOrCreateCache" is not a
good idea when streamer is called from a client node because it will lead
to creating a cache delegate on this node. But with current approach this
is not necessary and client node doesn't spent memory on it.

Therefore, I think we should not implement this provided that workaround
exists: user could call "Ignite.getOrCreateCache" manually before starting
data streaming in case it is really needed.

Vladimir.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have created IGNITE -1066 for this.
>
> Please see and comment.
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I think it is a good idea but I wonder if it makes sense to also notify
> to
> > the user somehow that a cache was created or not by this function.
> >
> > Why I feel that is necessary is because if we are creating caches most of
> > the time in the function to the user opaquely, it may lead to user
> > questioning the performance degradation (minor though it may be) since
> > creating a cache will be a tad more expensive than just getting it. It
> > would be worthwhile to atleast log so we can identify performance issues
> > later on.
> >
> > If you are fine I can make ticket and assign it to myself.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Igniters,
> >>
> >> Consider the following use case.
> >> 1) User configured cache template, but has never accessed it explicitly
> >> yet;
> >> 2) User calls Ignite.dataStreamer([cacheName]) - exception is thrown
> >> because cache is not started.
> >>
> >> I have a feeling that data streamer must have "getOrCreateCache"
> semantics
> >> so that user do not have to pre-start cache explicitly to start loading
> >> data to it.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Vladimir.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> > *l'apprenant*
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> *l'apprenant*
>

[Atri Sharma]

I agree with that but essentially this is same as manually creating before
data streaming. I agree with your point of cache delegation but there might
be usecases where client is fine with this (low number of caches) but may
need functionality to automate cache creation when streaming.

I feel that we should implement this and document memory implications of
this so it can be used for needed use cases.

Thoughts?

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Atri,
>
> I thought a little bit more about this. Calling "getOrCreateCache" is not a
> good idea when streamer is called from a client node because it will lead
> to creating a cache delegate on this node. But with current approach this
> is not necessary and client node doesn't spent memory on it.
>
> Therefore, I think we should not implement this provided that workaround
> exists: user could call "Ignite.getOrCreateCache" manually before starting
> data streaming in case it is really needed.
>
> Vladimir.
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I have created IGNITE -1066 for this.
> >
> > Please see and comment.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it is a good idea but I wonder if it makes sense to also notify
> > to
> > > the user somehow that a cache was created or not by this function.
> > >
> > > Why I feel that is necessary is because if we are creating caches most
> of
> > > the time in the function to the user opaquely, it may lead to user
> > > questioning the performance degradation (minor though it may be) since
> > > creating a cache will be a tad more expensive than just getting it. It
> > > would be worthwhile to atleast log so we can identify performance
> issues
> > > later on.
> > >
> > > If you are fine I can make ticket and assign it to myself.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Igniters,
> > >>
> > >> Consider the following use case.
> > >> 1) User configured cache template, but has never accessed it
> explicitly
> > >> yet;
> > >> 2) User calls Ignite.dataStreamer([cacheName]) - exception is thrown
> > >> because cache is not started.
> > >>
> > >> I have a feeling that data streamer must have "getOrCreateCache"
> > semantics
> > >> so that user do not have to pre-start cache explicitly to start
> loading
> > >> data to it.
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >>
> > >> Vladimir.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Atri
> > > *l'apprenant*
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> > *l'apprenant*
> >
>

--
Regards,

Atri
*l'apprenant*

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Atri,

Currently if user start data streaming on a client for already started
cache it doesn't yield in internal cache delegate creation on the client
what saves memory which is very important for client mode. With proposed
change client will always create cache delegate even if it is not needed.
This is why I am -1 for this change.

Vladimir.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree with that but essentially this is same as manually creating before
> data streaming. I agree with your point of cache delegation but there might
> be usecases where client is fine with this (low number of caches) but may
> need functionality to automate cache creation when streaming.
>
> I feel that we should implement this and document memory implications of
> this so it can be used for needed use cases.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Atri,
> >
> > I thought a little bit more about this. Calling "getOrCreateCache" is
> not a
> > good idea when streamer is called from a client node because it will lead
> > to creating a cache delegate on this node. But with current approach this
> > is not necessary and client node doesn't spent memory on it.
> >
> > Therefore, I think we should not implement this provided that workaround
> > exists: user could call "Ignite.getOrCreateCache" manually before
> starting
> > data streaming in case it is really needed.
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I have created IGNITE -1066 for this.
> > >
> > > Please see and comment.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think it is a good idea but I wonder if it makes sense to also
> notify
> > > to
> > > > the user somehow that a cache was created or not by this function.
> > > >
> > > > Why I feel that is necessary is because if we are creating caches
> most
> > of
> > > > the time in the function to the user opaquely, it may lead to user
> > > > questioning the performance degradation (minor though it may be)
> since
> > > > creating a cache will be a tad more expensive than just getting it.
> It
> > > > would be worthwhile to atleast log so we can identify performance
> > issues
> > > > later on.
> > > >
> > > > If you are fine I can make ticket and assign it to myself.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Igniters,
> > > >>
> > > >> Consider the following use case.
> > > >> 1) User configured cache template, but has never accessed it
> > explicitly
> > > >> yet;
> > > >> 2) User calls Ignite.dataStreamer([cacheName]) - exception is thrown
> > > >> because cache is not started.
> > > >>
> > > >> I have a feeling that data streamer must have "getOrCreateCache"
> > > semantics
> > > >> so that user do not have to pre-start cache explicitly to start
> > loading
> > > >> data to it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thoughts?
> > > >>
> > > >> Vladimir.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Atri
> > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Atri
> > > *l'apprenant*
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> *l'apprenant*
>

[Atri Sharma]

Could you explain a bit on when is a cache delegate needed? Just trying to
understand context here please.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Atri,
>
> Currently if user start data streaming on a client for already started
> cache it doesn't yield in internal cache delegate creation on the client
> what saves memory which is very important for client mode. With proposed
> change client will always create cache delegate even if it is not needed.
> This is why I am -1 for this change.
>
> Vladimir.
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I agree with that but essentially this is same as manually creating
> before
> > data streaming. I agree with your point of cache delegation but there
> might
> > be usecases where client is fine with this (low number of caches) but may
> > need functionality to automate cache creation when streaming.
> >
> > I feel that we should implement this and document memory implications of
> > this so it can be used for needed use cases.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Atri,
> > >
> > > I thought a little bit more about this. Calling "getOrCreateCache" is
> > not a
> > > good idea when streamer is called from a client node because it will
> lead
> > > to creating a cache delegate on this node. But with current approach
> this
> > > is not necessary and client node doesn't spent memory on it.
> > >
> > > Therefore, I think we should not implement this provided that
> workaround
> > > exists: user could call "Ignite.getOrCreateCache" manually before
> > starting
> > > data streaming in case it is really needed.
> > >
> > > Vladimir.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have created IGNITE -1066 for this.
> > > >
> > > > Please see and comment.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think it is a good idea but I wonder if it makes sense to also
> > notify
> > > > to
> > > > > the user somehow that a cache was created or not by this function.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why I feel that is necessary is because if we are creating caches
> > most
> > > of
> > > > > the time in the function to the user opaquely, it may lead to user
> > > > > questioning the performance degradation (minor though it may be)
> > since
> > > > > creating a cache will be a tad more expensive than just getting it.
> > It
> > > > > would be worthwhile to atleast log so we can identify performance
> > > issues
> > > > > later on.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are fine I can make ticket and assign it to myself.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Consider the following use case.
> > > > >> 1) User configured cache template, but has never accessed it
> > > explicitly
> > > > >> yet;
> > > > >> 2) User calls Ignite.dataStreamer([cacheName]) - exception is
> thrown
> > > > >> because cache is not started.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I have a feeling that data streamer must have "getOrCreateCache"
> > > > semantics
> > > > >> so that user do not have to pre-start cache explicitly to start
> > > loading
> > > > >> data to it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Vladimir.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Atri
> > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Atri
> > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> > *l'apprenant*
> >
>

--
Regards,

Atri
*l'apprenant*

[Vladimir Ozerov]

For client node it is necessary to perform regular cache operations.
However, data streamer uses completely different logic to perform cache
updates and does not require this delegate.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Could you explain a bit on when is a cache delegate needed? Just trying to
> understand context here please.
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Atri,
> >
> > Currently if user start data streaming on a client for already started
> > cache it doesn't yield in internal cache delegate creation on the client
> > what saves memory which is very important for client mode. With proposed
> > change client will always create cache delegate even if it is not needed.
> > This is why I am -1 for this change.
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with that but essentially this is same as manually creating
> > before
> > > data streaming. I agree with your point of cache delegation but there
> > might
> > > be usecases where client is fine with this (low number of caches) but
> may
> > > need functionality to automate cache creation when streaming.
> > >
> > > I feel that we should implement this and document memory implications
> of
> > > this so it can be used for needed use cases.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Atri,
> > > >
> > > > I thought a little bit more about this. Calling "getOrCreateCache" is
> > > not a
> > > > good idea when streamer is called from a client node because it will
> > lead
> > > > to creating a cache delegate on this node. But with current approach
> > this
> > > > is not necessary and client node doesn't spent memory on it.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, I think we should not implement this provided that
> > workaround
> > > > exists: user could call "Ignite.getOrCreateCache" manually before
> > > starting
> > > > data streaming in case it is really needed.
> > > >
> > > > Vladimir.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have created IGNITE -1066 for this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please see and comment.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think it is a good idea but I wonder if it makes sense to also
> > > notify
> > > > > to
> > > > > > the user somehow that a cache was created or not by this
> function.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why I feel that is necessary is because if we are creating caches
> > > most
> > > > of
> > > > > > the time in the function to the user opaquely, it may lead to
> user
> > > > > > questioning the performance degradation (minor though it may be)
> > > since
> > > > > > creating a cache will be a tad more expensive than just getting
> it.
> > > It
> > > > > > would be worthwhile to atleast log so we can identify performance
> > > > issues
> > > > > > later on.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you are fine I can make ticket and assign it to myself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Consider the following use case.
> > > > > >> 1) User configured cache template, but has never accessed it
> > > > explicitly
> > > > > >> yet;
> > > > > >> 2) User calls Ignite.dataStreamer([cacheName]) - exception is
> > thrown
> > > > > >> because cache is not started.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I have a feeling that data streamer must have "getOrCreateCache"
> > > > > semantics
> > > > > >> so that user do not have to pre-start cache explicitly to start
> > > > loading
> > > > > >> data to it.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Vladimir.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Atri
> > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Atri
> > > *l'apprenant*
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> *l'apprenant*
>

[Atri Sharma]

I see, and adding this method will mandate creation of the delegate even
for data streamer?

Is it a bad tradeoff (known bad tradeoff) for the functionality mentioned?
I still feel there might be use case where on the fly streaming is
necessary and low number of caches are used (mitigating this concern to a
point).

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> For client node it is necessary to perform regular cache operations.
> However, data streamer uses completely different logic to perform cache
> updates and does not require this delegate.
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Could you explain a bit on when is a cache delegate needed? Just trying
> to
> > understand context here please.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Atri,
> > >
> > > Currently if user start data streaming on a client for already started
> > > cache it doesn't yield in internal cache delegate creation on the
> client
> > > what saves memory which is very important for client mode. With
> proposed
> > > change client will always create cache delegate even if it is not
> needed.
> > > This is why I am -1 for this change.
> > >
> > > Vladimir.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree with that but essentially this is same as manually creating
> > > before
> > > > data streaming. I agree with your point of cache delegation but there
> > > might
> > > > be usecases where client is fine with this (low number of caches) but
> > may
> > > > need functionality to automate cache creation when streaming.
> > > >
> > > > I feel that we should implement this and document memory implications
> > of
> > > > this so it can be used for needed use cases.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Atri,
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought a little bit more about this. Calling "getOrCreateCache"
> is
> > > > not a
> > > > > good idea when streamer is called from a client node because it
> will
> > > lead
> > > > > to creating a cache delegate on this node. But with current
> approach
> > > this
> > > > > is not necessary and client node doesn't spent memory on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, I think we should not implement this provided that
> > > workaround
> > > > > exists: user could call "Ignite.getOrCreateCache" manually before
> > > > starting
> > > > > data streaming in case it is really needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have created IGNITE -1066 for this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please see and comment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Atri Sharma <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it is a good idea but I wonder if it makes sense to
> also
> > > > notify
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > the user somehow that a cache was created or not by this
> > function.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why I feel that is necessary is because if we are creating
> caches
> > > > most
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the time in the function to the user opaquely, it may lead to
> > user
> > > > > > > questioning the performance degradation (minor though it may
> be)
> > > > since
> > > > > > > creating a cache will be a tad more expensive than just getting
> > it.
> > > > It
> > > > > > > would be worthwhile to atleast log so we can identify
> performance
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > > later on.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you are fine I can make ticket and assign it to myself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Consider the following use case.
> > > > > > >> 1) User configured cache template, but has never accessed it
> > > > > explicitly
> > > > > > >> yet;
> > > > > > >> 2) User calls Ignite.dataStreamer([cacheName]) - exception is
> > > thrown
> > > > > > >> because cache is not started.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I have a feeling that data streamer must have
> "getOrCreateCache"
> > > > > > semantics
> > > > > > >> so that user do not have to pre-start cache explicitly to
> start
> > > > > loading
> > > > > > >> data to it.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Vladimir.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Atri
> > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> > *l'apprenant*
> >
>

--
Regards,

Atri
*l'apprenant*

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Atri,

If user require first create cache and the start streaming to it, then he
can always call Ignite.getOrCreateCache(). The idea here is that we let
user decide whether cache creation is necessary or not, instead of always
creating it.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I see, and adding this method will mandate creation of the delegate even
> for data streamer?
>
> Is it a bad tradeoff (known bad tradeoff) for the functionality mentioned?
> I still feel there might be use case where on the fly streaming is
> necessary and low number of caches are used (mitigating this concern to a
> point).
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > For client node it is necessary to perform regular cache operations.
> > However, data streamer uses completely different logic to perform cache
> > updates and does not require this delegate.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Could you explain a bit on when is a cache delegate needed? Just trying
> > to
> > > understand context here please.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Atri,
> > > >
> > > > Currently if user start data streaming on a client for already
> started
> > > > cache it doesn't yield in internal cache delegate creation on the
> > client
> > > > what saves memory which is very important for client mode. With
> > proposed
> > > > change client will always create cache delegate even if it is not
> > needed.
> > > > This is why I am -1 for this change.
> > > >
> > > > Vladimir.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I agree with that but essentially this is same as manually creating
> > > > before
> > > > > data streaming. I agree with your point of cache delegation but
> there
> > > > might
> > > > > be usecases where client is fine with this (low number of caches)
> but
> > > may
> > > > > need functionality to automate cache creation when streaming.
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel that we should implement this and document memory
> implications
> > > of
> > > > > this so it can be used for needed use cases.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Atri,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I thought a little bit more about this. Calling
> "getOrCreateCache"
> > is
> > > > > not a
> > > > > > good idea when streamer is called from a client node because it
> > will
> > > > lead
> > > > > > to creating a cache delegate on this node. But with current
> > approach
> > > > this
> > > > > > is not necessary and client node doesn't spent memory on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Therefore, I think we should not implement this provided that
> > > > workaround
> > > > > > exists: user could call "Ignite.getOrCreateCache" manually before
> > > > > starting
> > > > > > data streaming in case it is really needed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Atri Sharma <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have created IGNITE -1066 for this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please see and comment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Atri Sharma <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think it is a good idea but I wonder if it makes sense to
> > also
> > > > > notify
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the user somehow that a cache was created or not by this
> > > function.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why I feel that is necessary is because if we are creating
> > caches
> > > > > most
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the time in the function to the user opaquely, it may lead to
> > > user
> > > > > > > > questioning the performance degradation (minor though it may
> > be)
> > > > > since
> > > > > > > > creating a cache will be a tad more expensive than just
> getting
> > > it.
> > > > > It
> > > > > > > > would be worthwhile to atleast log so we can identify
> > performance
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > later on.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you are fine I can make ticket and assign it to myself.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Consider the following use case.
> > > > > > > >> 1) User configured cache template, but has never accessed it
> > > > > > explicitly
> > > > > > > >> yet;
> > > > > > > >> 2) User calls Ignite.dataStreamer([cacheName]) - exception
> is
> > > > thrown
> > > > > > > >> because cache is not started.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I have a feeling that data streamer must have
> > "getOrCreateCache"
> > > > > > > semantics
> > > > > > > >> so that user do not have to pre-start cache explicitly to
> > start
> > > > > > loading
> > > > > > > >> data to it.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Atri
> > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Atri
> > > *l'apprenant*
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> *l'apprenant*
>

[Atri Sharma]

Hrm, got that.

So conclusion is to not go ahead with this feature?

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Atri,
>
> If user require first create cache and the start streaming to it, then he
> can always call Ignite.getOrCreateCache(). The idea here is that we let
> user decide whether cache creation is necessary or not, instead of always
> creating it.
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I see, and adding this method will mandate creation of the delegate even
> > for data streamer?
> >
> > Is it a bad tradeoff (known bad tradeoff) for the functionality
> mentioned?
> > I still feel there might be use case where on the fly streaming is
> > necessary and low number of caches are used (mitigating this concern to a
> > point).
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > For client node it is necessary to perform regular cache operations.
> > > However, data streamer uses completely different logic to perform cache
> > > updates and does not require this delegate.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Could you explain a bit on when is a cache delegate needed? Just
> trying
> > > to
> > > > understand context here please.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Atri,
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently if user start data streaming on a client for already
> > started
> > > > > cache it doesn't yield in internal cache delegate creation on the
> > > client
> > > > > what saves memory which is very important for client mode. With
> > > proposed
> > > > > change client will always create cache delegate even if it is not
> > > needed.
> > > > > This is why I am -1 for this change.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with that but essentially this is same as manually
> creating
> > > > > before
> > > > > > data streaming. I agree with your point of cache delegation but
> > there
> > > > > might
> > > > > > be usecases where client is fine with this (low number of caches)
> > but
> > > > may
> > > > > > need functionality to automate cache creation when streaming.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I feel that we should implement this and document memory
> > implications
> > > > of
> > > > > > this so it can be used for needed use cases.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Atri,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I thought a little bit more about this. Calling
> > "getOrCreateCache"
> > > is
> > > > > > not a
> > > > > > > good idea when streamer is called from a client node because it
> > > will
> > > > > lead
> > > > > > > to creating a cache delegate on this node. But with current
> > > approach
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > is not necessary and client node doesn't spent memory on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Therefore, I think we should not implement this provided that
> > > > > workaround
> > > > > > > exists: user could call "Ignite.getOrCreateCache" manually
> before
> > > > > > starting
> > > > > > > data streaming in case it is really needed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Atri Sharma <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have created IGNITE -1066 for this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please see and comment.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Atri Sharma <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think it is a good idea but I wonder if it makes sense to
> > > also
> > > > > > notify
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the user somehow that a cache was created or not by this
> > > > function.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why I feel that is necessary is because if we are creating
> > > caches
> > > > > > most
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the time in the function to the user opaquely, it may lead
> to
> > > > user
> > > > > > > > > questioning the performance degradation (minor though it
> may
> > > be)
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > creating a cache will be a tad more expensive than just
> > getting
> > > > it.
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > would be worthwhile to atleast log so we can identify
> > > performance
> > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > later on.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you are fine I can make ticket and assign it to myself.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Consider the following use case.
> > > > > > > > >> 1) User configured cache template, but has never accessed
> it
> > > > > > > explicitly
> > > > > > > > >> yet;
> > > > > > > > >> 2) User calls Ignite.dataStreamer([cacheName]) - exception
> > is
> > > > > thrown
> > > > > > > > >> because cache is not started.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I have a feeling that data streamer must have
> > > "getOrCreateCache"
> > > > > > > > semantics
> > > > > > > > >> so that user do not have to pre-start cache explicitly to
> > > start
> > > > > > > loading
> > > > > > > > >> data to it.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Atri
> > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> > *l'apprenant*
> >
>

--
Regards,

Atri
*l'apprenant*

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Yes.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hrm, got that.
>
> So conclusion is to not go ahead with this feature?
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Atri,
> >
> > If user require first create cache and the start streaming to it, then he
> > can always call Ignite.getOrCreateCache(). The idea here is that we let
> > user decide whether cache creation is necessary or not, instead of always
> > creating it.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I see, and adding this method will mandate creation of the delegate
> even
> > > for data streamer?
> > >
> > > Is it a bad tradeoff (known bad tradeoff) for the functionality
> > mentioned?
> > > I still feel there might be use case where on the fly streaming is
> > > necessary and low number of caches are used (mitigating this concern
> to a
> > > point).
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > For client node it is necessary to perform regular cache operations.
> > > > However, data streamer uses completely different logic to perform
> cache
> > > > updates and does not require this delegate.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Could you explain a bit on when is a cache delegate needed? Just
> > trying
> > > > to
> > > > > understand context here please.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Atri,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently if user start data streaming on a client for already
> > > started
> > > > > > cache it doesn't yield in internal cache delegate creation on the
> > > > client
> > > > > > what saves memory which is very important for client mode. With
> > > > proposed
> > > > > > change client will always create cache delegate even if it is not
> > > > needed.
> > > > > > This is why I am -1 for this change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Atri Sharma <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree with that but essentially this is same as manually
> > creating
> > > > > > before
> > > > > > > data streaming. I agree with your point of cache delegation but
> > > there
> > > > > > might
> > > > > > > be usecases where client is fine with this (low number of
> caches)
> > > but
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > need functionality to automate cache creation when streaming.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I feel that we should implement this and document memory
> > > implications
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > this so it can be used for needed use cases.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Atri,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I thought a little bit more about this. Calling
> > > "getOrCreateCache"
> > > > is
> > > > > > > not a
> > > > > > > > good idea when streamer is called from a client node because
> it
> > > > will
> > > > > > lead
> > > > > > > > to creating a cache delegate on this node. But with current
> > > > approach
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > is not necessary and client node doesn't spent memory on it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Therefore, I think we should not implement this provided that
> > > > > > workaround
> > > > > > > > exists: user could call "Ignite.getOrCreateCache" manually
> > before
> > > > > > > starting
> > > > > > > > data streaming in case it is really needed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Atri Sharma <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have created IGNITE -1066 for this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please see and comment.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Atri Sharma <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think it is a good idea but I wonder if it makes sense
> to
> > > > also
> > > > > > > notify
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the user somehow that a cache was created or not by this
> > > > > function.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Why I feel that is necessary is because if we are
> creating
> > > > caches
> > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the time in the function to the user opaquely, it may
> lead
> > to
> > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > questioning the performance degradation (minor though it
> > may
> > > > be)
> > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > creating a cache will be a tad more expensive than just
> > > getting
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > would be worthwhile to atleast log so we can identify
> > > > performance
> > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > later on.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you are fine I can make ticket and assign it to
> myself.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Consider the following use case.
> > > > > > > > > >> 1) User configured cache template, but has never
> accessed
> > it
> > > > > > > > explicitly
> > > > > > > > > >> yet;
> > > > > > > > > >> 2) User calls Ignite.dataStreamer([cacheName]) -
> exception
> > > is
> > > > > > thrown
> > > > > > > > > >> because cache is not started.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> I have a feeling that data streamer must have
> > > > "getOrCreateCache"
> > > > > > > > > semantics
> > > > > > > > > >> so that user do not have to pre-start cache explicitly
> to
> > > > start
> > > > > > > > loading
> > > > > > > > > >> data to it.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Atri
> > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Atri
> > > *l'apprenant*
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> *l'apprenant*
>

[Atri Sharma]

There goes my half baked patch :(

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Yes.
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hrm, got that.
> >
> > So conclusion is to not go ahead with this feature?
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Atri,
> > >
> > > If user require first create cache and the start streaming to it, then
> he
> > > can always call Ignite.getOrCreateCache(). The idea here is that we let
> > > user decide whether cache creation is necessary or not, instead of
> always
> > > creating it.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I see, and adding this method will mandate creation of the delegate
> > even
> > > > for data streamer?
> > > >
> > > > Is it a bad tradeoff (known bad tradeoff) for the functionality
> > > mentioned?
> > > > I still feel there might be use case where on the fly streaming is
> > > > necessary and low number of caches are used (mitigating this concern
> > to a
> > > > point).
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > For client node it is necessary to perform regular cache
> operations.
> > > > > However, data streamer uses completely different logic to perform
> > cache
> > > > > updates and does not require this delegate.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Atri Sharma <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Could you explain a bit on when is a cache delegate needed? Just
> > > trying
> > > > > to
> > > > > > understand context here please.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Atri,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Currently if user start data streaming on a client for already
> > > > started
> > > > > > > cache it doesn't yield in internal cache delegate creation on
> the
> > > > > client
> > > > > > > what saves memory which is very important for client mode. With
> > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > change client will always create cache delegate even if it is
> not
> > > > > needed.
> > > > > > > This is why I am -1 for this change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Atri Sharma <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree with that but essentially this is same as manually
> > > creating
> > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > data streaming. I agree with your point of cache delegation
> but
> > > > there
> > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > be usecases where client is fine with this (low number of
> > caches)
> > > > but
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > need functionality to automate cache creation when streaming.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I feel that we should implement this and document memory
> > > > implications
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > this so it can be used for needed use cases.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Atri,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I thought a little bit more about this. Calling
> > > > "getOrCreateCache"
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > not a
> > > > > > > > > good idea when streamer is called from a client node
> because
> > it
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > lead
> > > > > > > > > to creating a cache delegate on this node. But with current
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > is not necessary and client node doesn't spent memory on
> it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Therefore, I think we should not implement this provided
> that
> > > > > > > workaround
> > > > > > > > > exists: user could call "Ignite.getOrCreateCache" manually
> > > before
> > > > > > > > starting
> > > > > > > > > data streaming in case it is really needed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Atri Sharma <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have created IGNITE -1066 for this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please see and comment.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Atri Sharma <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think it is a good idea but I wonder if it makes
> sense
> > to
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > > notify
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the user somehow that a cache was created or not by
> this
> > > > > > function.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Why I feel that is necessary is because if we are
> > creating
> > > > > caches
> > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > the time in the function to the user opaquely, it may
> > lead
> > > to
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > questioning the performance degradation (minor though
> it
> > > may
> > > > > be)
> > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > > creating a cache will be a tad more expensive than just
> > > > getting
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > would be worthwhile to atleast log so we can identify
> > > > > performance
> > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > later on.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you are fine I can make ticket and assign it to
> > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Consider the following use case.
> > > > > > > > > > >> 1) User configured cache template, but has never
> > accessed
> > > it
> > > > > > > > > explicitly
> > > > > > > > > > >> yet;
> > > > > > > > > > >> 2) User calls Ignite.dataStreamer([cacheName]) -
> > exception
> > > > is
> > > > > > > thrown
> > > > > > > > > > >> because cache is not started.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> I have a feeling that data streamer must have
> > > > > "getOrCreateCache"
> > > > > > > > > > semantics
> > > > > > > > > > >> so that user do not have to pre-start cache explicitly
> > to
> > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > loading
> > > > > > > > > > >> data to it.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Atri
> > > > *l'apprenant*
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> > *l'apprenant*
> >
>

--
Regards,

Atri
*l'apprenant*