ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing
Date Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:37:23 GMT
Thank you Alexander, I merged these changes.

I recommend everybody get latest chages from ignite-2.0.

Thanks!

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:

> PR updated
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay. Will do it shortly.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Semyon Boikov <sboikov@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Alexander,
> >>
> >> I see there are conflicts again, could you plase resolve them, I'm going
> >> to
> >> review and merge these changes today.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks, Alex!
> >> >
> >> > Sam, can you please also take a look to make sure we catch all
> possible
> >> > issues on review? Let's merge this on Monday since this is very
> >> > conflict-prone change.
> >> >
> >> > --Yakov
> >> >
> >> > 2017-03-10 12:57 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
> >> > >:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > > PR updated. Currently no conflicts at
> >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Sure. Will take a look.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> yzhdanov@apache.org>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Alexander,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Page https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435 reports several
> >> > > >> conflicts.
> >> > > >> Can you please check and resolve if necessary. Then resubmit
for
> >> > review
> >> > > >> again.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --Yakov
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> 2017-03-03 13:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > > >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com>:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > Hi, it's ready for review
> >> > > >> > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> >> yzhdanov@apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > > >> > wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status
of this
> >> ticket
> >> > and
> >> > > >> > > further steps?
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > --Yakov
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > 2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
> >> > > >> > > >:
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > > Done. But it looks like something went wrong
since Upsource
> >> > > reports:
> >> > > >> > > > "Review has too many files (1244), aborting".
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > Also guys, I believe we need to merge this
change in short
> >> time
> >> > > >> because
> >> > > >> > > > it's targeted for 2.0 and chances for a conflict
are high.
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn
<
> >> > > >> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > Alexander,
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > Please name the review appropriately
and link it in the
> >> ticket
> >> > > as
> >> > > >> > > > > described:
> >> > > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> >> > > >> > > > > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > >> > > > > Pavel
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Alexander
Fedotov <
> >> > > >> > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > Created Upsource review for the
subject:
> >> > > >> > > > > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.o
> >> rg/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/vi
> >> ewLog.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+I
> >> gnite+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.
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > --
> >> > > >> > > > Kind regards,
> >> > > >> > > > Alexander.
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > --
> >> > > >> > Kind regards,
> >> > > >> > Alexander.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Kind regards,
> >> > > > Alexander.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Kind regards,
> >> > > Alexander.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> > Alex.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alex.
>

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