Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-10558

disable or remove butler caching

    Details

    • Type: Story
    • Status: Done
    • Resolution: Done
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: daf_persistence
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      the reused object aspect of caching (documented in LDM-463 draft) is causing confusion because shared objects can be mutated, and this is not what some developers would expect. Disable it and/or remove the code for now. If it's wanted, we can have an RFC or RFD about how to handle mutable objects.

      Also update LDM-463 (remove the bit about caching)

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            npease Nate Pease added a comment -

            Andy, can you please look at this soonish if you can. It only removes code that implements the caching feature.

            This will help some users that are running into issues with shared objects, we've decided that if it's needed at all it at least needs more discussion via RFC.

            Show
            npease Nate Pease added a comment - Andy, can you please look at this soonish if you can. It only removes code that implements the caching feature. This will help some users that are running into issues with shared objects, we've decided that if it's needed at all it at least needs more discussion via RFC.
            Hide
            salnikov Andy Salnikov added a comment -

            Looks OK. I'd probably kept code around but had caching controlled by some sort of policy (and had it off by default). But if you are sure no one will ever need it then it's ok to remove altogether.

            Show
            salnikov Andy Salnikov added a comment - Looks OK. I'd probably kept code around but had caching controlled by some sort of policy (and had it off by default). But if you are sure no one will ever need it then it's ok to remove altogether.
            Hide
            npease Nate Pease added a comment -

            thanks Andy. I think the problem with shared writable objects is going to require enough conversation & redesign that it's not worth keeping the existing functionality around in an optional form. And of course, nothing in git is ever lost

            Show
            npease Nate Pease added a comment - thanks Andy. I think the problem with shared writable objects is going to require enough conversation & redesign that it's not worth keeping the existing functionality around in an optional form. And of course, nothing in git is ever lost

              People

              • Assignee:
                npease Nate Pease
                Reporter:
                npease Nate Pease
                Reviewers:
                Andy Salnikov
                Watchers:
                Andy Salnikov, Nate Pease
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                2 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:

                  Summary Panel