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, 09 Mar 2017 15:50:08 GMT
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.

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