ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Service grid redesign
Date Wed, 07 Nov 2018 11:38:54 GMT
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.

Mime
View raw message