ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Fedotov <alexander.fedot...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:00:55 GMT
Hi,

Created Upsource review for the subject:
http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've completed working on IGNITE-3207
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207
>
> Looks like TC test results don't have problems related to my changes
> http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=423955&
> tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
>
> Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435/
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Support Pavel’s point of view.
>>
>> Also Alexander please make sure that your changes are merged into
>> ignite-2.0 branch rather than to the master. I think this functionality
>> has to be available in 2.0 first. Finally, please update 2.0 Migration
>> Guide once you’ve finished with this task:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
>> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
>> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
>>
>> —
>> Denis
>>
>> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think we should fix log output as well and replace all "grid"
>> occurences
>> > with "instance".
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I think we should leave null as a default value for unnamed Ignite
>> >> instances. At least that change should be considered out of the current
>> >> scope.
>> >>
>> >> What about naming, I'm also renaming log occurrences of "grid" and
>> "grid
>> >> name" where it stands reasonable.
>> >> Are there places in the logging logic where we should prefer name
>> "grid" or
>> >> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or "Ignite instance
>> name" can
>> >> be used without any semantic impact?
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Okay. From the all said above I suppose "instanceName" should work for
>> >>> IgniteConfiguration and "igniteInstanceName" in all other places.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Alexander
>> >>>
>> >>> 31 дек. 2016 г. 3:43 AM пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan"
<
>> >>> dsetrakyan@apache.org> написал:
>> >>>
>> >>> It sounds like it must be unique then. I would propose the following:
>> >>>
>> >>>   1. If user defines the instanceName, then we assign it to the node.
>> >>>   2. If user does not define the instance name, then we have to give
>> it
>> >>>   some unique value, like node ID or PID.
>> >>>
>> >>> Will this change be backward compatible, or should we leave it as
>> null if
>> >>> user does not define it?
>> >>>
>> >>> D.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <dmagda@gridgain.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName' suits better considering
>> >>> your
>> >>>> explanation.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Denis
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> This name identifies instance of Ignite, in case there are more
than
>> >>> one
>> >>>>> within an application. Here are our API methods around this:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> // We provide a name and get newly started *Ignite* instance.
>> >>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.start(new
>> >>>> IgniteConfiguration().setGridName(name));
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> // We provide a name and get existing *Ignite* instance.
>> >>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node representation we
have
>> >>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId() method for
>> >> identification.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will have both nodeName
>> and
>> >>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely different meaning
and
>> used
>> >>> in
>> >>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to understand the
>> >> difference
>> >>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more confusing than current
>> >>>> gridName.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <dmagda@gridgain.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Alexander, frankly speaking I'm still for your original
proposal -
>> >>>>>> nodeName. The uniqueness specificities can be set in the
doc.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> Denis
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Alexander Fedotov <
>> >>>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Well, then may be we should go with one of the below
names:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> processNodeName
>> >>>>>>> jvmNodeName
>> >>>>>>> runtimeNodeName
>> >>>>>>> processScopedNodeName
>> >>>>>>> jvmScopedNodeName
>> >>>>>>> runtimeScopedNodeName
>> >>>>>>> processWideNodeName
>> >>>>>>> jvmWideNodeName
>> >>>>>>> runtimeWideNodeName
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>> Alexander
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> 31 дек. 2016 г. 12:37 AM пользователь
"Denis Magda" <
>> >>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>> написал:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The parameter specifies a node name which has to be
unique per JVM
>> >>>>>> process
>> >>>>>>> (if you start multiple nodes in a single process). In
my
>> >>> understanding
>> >>>> it
>> >>>>>>> was mainly introduced to handle these multiple-nodes-per-JVM
>> >>>> scenarios.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> However, several nodes can have the same name cluster
wide.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> —
>> >>>>>>> Denis
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of this configuration
>> >>>> parameter?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> See Val’s concern in the discussion. I’m
absolutely fine with
>> >>>>>> ‘nodeName’.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> —
>> >>>>>>>>> Denis
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<
>> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda
<
>> >> dmagda@apache.org>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't
it obvious that the
>> >> name
>> >>> is
>> >>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>> local node?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Kind regards,
>> >> Alexander.
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alexander.
>



-- 
Kind regards,
Alexander.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message