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 Fri, 10 Mar 2017 09:57:30 GMT
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.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.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Kind regards,
>> > Alexander.
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alexander.
>



-- 
Kind regards,
Alexander.

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