⚠ This page is served via a proxy. Original site: https://github.com
This service does not collect credentials or authentication data.
Skip to content

Conversation

@Arsnael
Copy link
Contributor

@Arsnael Arsnael commented Jan 6, 2026

Still need some tests to make sure V2 can read and delete blobs created with V1

@Arsnael Arsnael self-assigned this Jan 6, 2026
@Arsnael Arsnael changed the title Blobstore deleted message vault v2 JAMES-4156 Blobstore deleted message vault v2 Jan 6, 2026
Copy link
Member

@quantranhong1999 quantranhong1999 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Read it.

@Arsnael
Copy link
Contributor Author

Arsnael commented Jan 7, 2026

Will work on extra tests now

@Arsnael
Copy link
Contributor Author

Arsnael commented Jan 7, 2026

Question that I was asking myself while doing this though: is a V2 necessary? Why not just refactoring the initial BlobStoreDeletedMessageVault? The only thing that changes here is the append (write in new single bucket). The rest is the same logic (it works with the underlying metadata untouched)

The rest that is current design specific is for the gc task (the expired deleteExpiredMessages part stuff).

Just opening a discussion here.

@chibenwa
Copy link
Contributor

chibenwa commented Jan 7, 2026

Why not just refactoring the initial BlobStoreDeletedMessageVault? The only thing that changes here is the append (write in new single bucket). The rest is the same logic (it works with the underlying metadata untouched)

Very good remark that will allow to reduce the overall complexity!

Reading the vault will indeed be naturally backward compatible.

We just need to ensure that "the purge" still cleans up the old bucket. And we would be good to go IMO.

@Arsnael
Copy link
Contributor Author

Arsnael commented Jan 7, 2026

I think it would make the gc task refactoring easier too... Alright will adapt this one to what we just agreed and then will (in an other PR) tackle the GC part refactoring.

@chibenwa agreed?

@Arsnael
Copy link
Contributor Author

Arsnael commented Jan 7, 2026

Slightly different approach so I preferred opening a new PR in case, see #2902

@Arsnael Arsnael closed this Jan 12, 2026
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.

3 participants