Re: [Tarantool-patches] [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH 1/3] tuple: rework updates to improve code extendibility

[Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>]

Thanks for the review!

On 05/10/2019 15:49, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> I don't know why my mutt folder hook are messed up, will
> take some time to figure out.
> 
> Resending from the right email.
> 
> * Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org> [19/09/28 09:10]:
>> Before the patch update was implemented as a set of operations
>> applicable for arrays only. It was ok until field names and JSON
>> paths appearance, because tuple is array on the top level.
>>
>> But now there are four reasons to allow more complex updates of
>> tuple field internals via JSON paths:
>> * tuple field access by JSON path is allowed so for consistency
>>   JSON paths should be allowed in updates as well;
>> * JSON indexes are supported. JSON update should be able to
>>   change an indexed field without rewriting half of a tuple;
>> * Tarantool is going to support documents in storage so JSON
>>   path updates is one more step forward;
>> * JSON updates are going to be faster than get + in-memory
>>   Lua/connector update + replace (or update of a whole tuple
>>   field).
>>
>> The patch prepares current update code to be extended by updates
>> of map, so named isolated 'bar' updates, and multilevel updates.
>>
>> The concept is to build a tree of update objects. Each updates a
>> scalar terminal value (leaf of that tree), or a complex object
>> like array or map. In the latter case these objects contain >= 2
>> children updates.
>>
>> This organization allows to split update implementation into
>> several independent files-modules for each update type. Next
>> commits will introduce them one by one.
> 
> Now that you provide some rationale for the rename, does the
> naming scheme you used reflects this rationale?
> 
> 1) update - a very general name, there is sql update, tuple
>    update, lsm tree update, configuration update

From my point of view 'update' is a very short and descriptive
name. Anyone who would somehow fail to understand it still may
open update/update.h and see 'tuple_update_execute'. That makes
it already obvious what is it for. And since all the update-related
files are in own directory, it becomes obvious that all the other
files are also about tuple updates.

> 2) update_array - impossible to say by looking at the code whether
>    it is a function which udpates an array or an array of updates.

In the code I said explicitly what it is:

	/**
	 * Field is an updated array. Check the rope for updates
	 * of individual fields.
	 */
	UPDATE_ARRAY,

Even twice:

		/**
		 * This update changes an array. Children fields
		 * are stored in rope nodes.
		 */
		struct {
			struct rope *rope;
		} array;

> 
> Generally, the key reason to exist for the update interface
> is being able to represent partial tuple changes in the binary
> log - i.e. update micro-language exists only because we want
> to send compact changes over the network to replicas. There is
> no other reason *for the microlanguage* to exist.

How is it related to my patchset?

> 
> So maybe it should be called xrow_update, to avoid ambiguity with
> other types of updates? 
> 

It has nothing to do with xrow. There is no a header, metadata,
persistency, or networking. Additionally, this code uses names,
tuple formats, which do not exist in xrow.