Skip to content

improve: PrimaryUpdateAndCacheUtils locks, naming and doc improvements #2799

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

Closed
wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

csviri
Copy link
Collaborator

@csviri csviri commented May 14, 2025

TODO

  • cache utils test

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label May 14, 2025
@csviri csviri changed the title primary cache with lock improve: PrimaryUpdateAndCacheUtils naming and javadoc improvements May 14, 2025
csviri added 4 commits May 14, 2025 15:34
Signed-off-by: Attila Mészáros <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Attila Mészáros <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Attila Mészáros <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Attila Mészáros <[email protected]>
@csviri csviri changed the title improve: PrimaryUpdateAndCacheUtils naming and javadoc improvements improve: PrimaryUpdateAndCacheUtils locks, naming and doc improvements May 14, 2025
Signed-off-by: Attila Mészáros <[email protected]>
@csviri csviri marked this pull request as ready for review May 15, 2025 08:35
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label May 15, 2025
@csviri csviri requested a review from metacosm May 15, 2025 08:35
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested a review from xstefank May 15, 2025 08:35
@csviri
Copy link
Collaborator Author

csviri commented May 15, 2025

@xstefank @metacosm this is the next iteration of the primary caches.

It provides an additional and I think preferred way to update the internal caches using update method with retryable optimistic locking. I think this should be the default what users should use.

To be honest I'm a bit hesitant if we should provide the other approaches at this point. But would do this in a way that we merge this and in case I remove it in a subsequent PR - so we have history of alternatives.

@csviri
Copy link
Collaborator Author

csviri commented May 15, 2025

Replacement for this PR: #2800

@csviri csviri closed this May 15, 2025
@metacosm
Copy link
Collaborator

Can we delete the branch?

@csviri
Copy link
Collaborator Author

csviri commented May 16, 2025

sure

@csviri csviri deleted the primary-cache-with-lock branch May 16, 2025 07:02
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants