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 Thu, 08 Nov 2018 14:20:11 GMT
Hello, Igniters.

Please, respond if anyone wish to do the additional review of this
improvement.

I think it's ready to be merged, so if noone has time to review, I can
merge the patch.

ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 18:04 Vyacheslav Daradur daradurvs@gmail.com:

> 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.
>

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