ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>
Subject Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing
Date Fri, 03 Mar 2017 08:39:41 GMT
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.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.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alexander.
>

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