ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Service grid redesign
Date Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:25:37 GMT
Hello, Vladimir.

I'm agree with you.

Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
Without a date or similar. 
Just a list of experts who should review this feature.

В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> Igniters,
> 
> This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We should not merge
> it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews are ready,
> irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about quality, not speed.
> 
> сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
> 
> > Vyacheslav,
> > 
> > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed? Affinity, failure,
> > etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the wiki and then
> > our tech writers will get everything documented.
> > 
> > --
> > Denis
> > 
> > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Denis,
> > > 
> > > Services reassignment process takes into account previous assignments
> > > to avoid redundant redeployments.
> > > So, in the described case, ServiceA won't be moved from node1 to node2.
> > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > 
> > > > First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and rolling out these
> > > 
> > > new
> > > > capabilities.
> > > > 
> > > > Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new architecture
> > > 
> > > avoid
> > > > a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For instance,
> > 
> > let's
> > > > say I have ServiceA running node1, then node2 joins and I don't want
> > 
> > the
> > > > service to be redeployed to any other node.
> > > > 
> > > > [1]
> > > > 
> > 
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584#ServiceGridredesign.Phase1.Implementationdetails.-Topologychange
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Denis
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki:
> > > > > 
> > 
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you
please
> > > > > 
> > > > > create a
> > > > > > page?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com
> > > 
> > > :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I prepared a description of the implemented solution and
attached
> > > 
> > > it
> > > > > > > to the issue [1].
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This should help during a review. Should I post the document
into
> > > 
> > > wiki
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > IEP?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1]
[2],
> > > 
> > > please?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > 
> > > > > daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters! Good news!
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available
now.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > However, we need additional review from other Ignite
experts.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2].
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Could someone step in and do the review?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov
<
> > > > > 
> > > > > dmekhanikov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Pavel, could you assist?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service
class name
> > > 
> > > instead
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > implementation?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I think, it shouldn't be a problem.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur
<
> > > > > 
> > > > > daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > I think that the replacement of serialized
instance makes
> > > 
> > > sense
> > > > > to me
> > > > > > > > > > for Java part.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > But how it should work for .NET client?
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy
Setrakyan <
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita
Amelchev <
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > nsamelchev@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am working on task [1] that
would replace serialized
> > > > > 
> > > > > service's
> > > > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > > > > by service's class name and properties
map in
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > {ServiceConfiguration}.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > The task describes that we should
use
> > > > > > > > > > > > {String className} + {Map<String,
Object> properties}
> > > 
> > > instead
> > > > > > > {Service
> > > > > > > > > > > > srvc}.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to clarify the following
questions:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. What about public methods?
> > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest to mark them as deprecated
and use class name
> > > 
> > > of
> > > > > > > provided
> > > > > > > > > > > > instance.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also to add deploying methods
with new parameters:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > @Deprecated
> > > > > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture<?>
> > > > > 
> > > > > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > > > > > name, Service svc)
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture<?>
> > > > > 
> > > > > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map<String,
Object> prop)
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > I think this makes sense, but I would
like other
> > > 
> > > committers to
> > > > > > > confirm.
> > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment
here.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Is {Map<String, Object>
properties} parameter
> > > 
> > > mandatory
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > deploying a
> > > > > > > > > > > > service?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is it make sense to add deploying
methods without it?
> > 
> > For
> > > > > > > example:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture<?>
> > > > > 
> > > > > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName)
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture<?>
> > > > > 
> > > > > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map<String,
Object> prop)
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > I would always ask the user to pass
the property map, but
> > > 
> > > would
> > > > > > > allow it
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > be null.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > 

Mime
View raw message