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 Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:59:41 GMT
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/
> confluence/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.

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