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 Mon, 13 Mar 2017 10:05:04 GMT
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.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.
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Kind regards,
Alex.

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