ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Service grid redesign
Date Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:01:36 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message