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 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:08:51 GMT
Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?

Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no end in sign.

I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new features
like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about new
tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our
end-users.

But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of questions. Thanks!
>
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhanikov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged.
> > I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the upcoming week.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Denis
> >
> > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org>:
> >
> > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Mime
View raw message