Skip to content

most recent provider and provider stores #42

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

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
May 2, 2018
Merged

most recent provider and provider stores #42

merged 11 commits into from
May 2, 2018

Conversation

mattsb42-aws
Copy link
Member

@mattsb42-aws mattsb42-aws commented May 1, 2018

Description of changes:
Introduction of MostRecentProvider, provider stores, and MetaStore.

BLOCKED BY #46

NOTE

To ease parallelization of efforts, this PR is based on the DELETE-9 fork. Prior to looking over this PR, #46 should be merged to master and the base for this PR be changed to master.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

provider = self._cache.get(version)
except KeyError:
try:
provider = self._provider_store.provider(self._material_name, version)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This version only works with a single material name. While this is the default in the Java one, this behavior can be override in Java. Can this class be modified (possibly post launch) to support this additional functionality?

Please see this commit for additional context: aws/aws-dynamodb-encryption-java@5045e9f#diff-61178aa9fd65f26315b84815e46913fb

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#48


return TtlActions.EXPIRED

def _can_use_current(self):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why doesn't this delegate to _ttl_action?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Because I forgot to remove that method when I replaced it with _ttl_action :/

Removing


try:
version = self._get_max_version()
provider = self._get_provider(version)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If old version is the same as new version, this still hits DynamoDB (including decryption costs) rather than just continuing to use the version in the cache.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fair point. Adding a cache attempt after getting the max version.


actual_version, provider = self._get_most_recent_version(allow_local)

self._cache.put(actual_version, provider)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it an issue that this (and the next line) are not done in the same lock as was acquired in _get_most_recent_version?

In general, I'm worried about this being split across multiple lock calls. It seems like this my result in multiple threads calling DynamoDB for a single refresh (when it isn't necessary).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, that's a good point. I had originally split it up for simplicity, but with how the locking has changed since then I agree, this could create unintended side effects.

…e provider store

* move local version, last updated, and cache update into _get_most_recent_version to keep them inside the same lock acquisition
Copy link
Contributor

@SalusaSecondus SalusaSecondus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IANAPD

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants