Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ignite.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+0=VoVtvr=4SbdGSjwgGZtDGrjDpPeysH_O8DUpnBJwf6aMqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAC15qqXE6WOk6JCqri8Juh_SbfCEzQBfQHi9BFk3qM_aDSTwvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGt6o8n3-OnYpOtbBoQg3W1cdVCvk9o4b5KUo6owmORTZHpxsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+0=VoVtvr=4SbdGSjwgGZtDGrjDpPeysH_O8DUpnBJwf6aMqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 13:16:26 +0300
Message-ID: 
 <CAC15qqXCAGrQzmwuZDQEPk=m8aAZOZPUnp48aCWusfa-JxjKCw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IGFS URI authority: simplify handling of IGFS and Grid names.
From: "Ivan V." <iveselovskiy@gridgain.com>
To: dev@ignite.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c0087e5055c00524553c1d

--001a11c0087e5055c00524553c1d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi, Dmitriy,
null Grid name and null Igfs name mean the default Grid and Igfs
respectively.
In case of in-process connection, URI without specified grid and/or igfs
name means to connect to the default (null-named) Grid and/or Igfs.
If this contract makes sense, we should not prohibit nulls.

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
wrote:

> I also agree (I think). Would prohibiting nulls also make sense?
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > User should have minimal chance to do a mistake in common scenarios.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Ivan V. <iveselovskiy@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, dev,
> > > currently IGFS URI has form
> > > igfs://[igfs-name[:grid-name]]@[host[:port]]/[path] .
> > > This connection can be established with "in-process" routine (used
> mostly
> > > in tests), or with SHMEM, or with TCP protocol.
> > > Current logic of "igfs-name" and "grid-name" handling is as follows.
> > > In case of in-proc routine the Ignite process is asked for named Grid
> and
> > > its IGFS, null names mean default instances.
> > > In case of external process connection (to "host:port" specified in the
> > > URI) there is a restriction that the name of connected IGFS and Grid
> must
> > > exactly match "igfs-name" and "grid-name" specified in the URI. But
> that
> > > rule leads to the following (may be unexpected) behavior: if URI is
> > > "igfs://localhost:10500/", the IGFS name and Grid names are null-s, and
> > the
> > > name match rule requires the connected IGFS and Grid to be default. And
> > if
> > > that is not the case, an exception is thrown. This situation has
> happened
> > > with a user, and described in
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1566 .
> > > In order to fix the problem and improve the usability, I would suggest
> to
> > > relax the name handling logic in the following way: in case of external
> > > connection treat unspecified Igfs and Grid names as a direction to
> > connect
> > > to the Grid/Igfs that owns the connection port (not more than one such
> > pair
> > > exists).
> > > Any objections, corrections, thoughts?
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > >
> >
>

--001a11c0087e5055c00524553c1d--