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 Sun, 02 Dec 2018 18:38:21 GMT
Hi, Igniters!

I fixed the notes and tests seem good.

So, let's continue the review [1] [2], any feedback is welcome!

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:16 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We had the private talk with Nikolay Izhikov, Vladimir Ozerov, Alexey
> Goncharuk, Yakov Zhdanov, Denis Mekhanikov, Dmitriy Pavlov and I would
> like to share the summary with the community:
>
> The architecture of the implemented deployment process looks good in
> general, but the following points should be improved:
> * The new implementation of service processor implementation should be
> moved to a new class;
> * A new system property should be introduced to allow users to switch
> to old implementation in case of errors;
> * Introduced service deployment failures policy should be removed from
> current PR and should be implemented as a different task with detailed
> discussion on dev list to avoid unexpected behavior;
> * The word "exchange" should be removed from classes names to avoid
> confusion with PME classes.
> * Single/full messages should include containing only deployment
> process-related information only (instead of all service) to reduce
> messages size;
>
> Thanks all! I'll let you know once I fix the notes.
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:28 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vyacheslav, Vladimir,
> >
> > Could you please invite me, if you will set up a call.
> >
> > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 13:08, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > Still not clear enough for me. I do not see a reason to send another over a
> > > ring in case of successful execution. The only reason is an error on a node
> > > which require correction (re-deploy to other node, full service undeploy,
> > > etc).
> > > I think it makes sense to organize another call to discuss current
> > > architecture. Otherwise we may spend too much time on emails.
> > >
> > > Vladimir.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:57 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The full map is needed:
> > > > 1) to propagate deployment results which could be different from
> > > > locally calculated in case of any errors;
> > > > 2) to transfer deployment errors across the cluster;
> > > > 3) to undeploy exceeded the number of service instances if needed;
> > > > 4) to get know other nodes that deployment process was finished, this
> > > > need to avoid calling services which have not been deployed yet (or
> > > > can't be deployed). We can't just store pending requests because of
> > > > time to deploy one service instances which may be significant.
> > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:45 PM Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > >
> > > > > I looked at the document and failed to find explanation why full maps
> > > are
> > > > > needed. Could you point me to a place where it is explained?
> > > > > I ask this because my impression from last discussion was that it is
> > > > never
> > > > > needed. Service status change is initiated by user action, then all
> > > nodes
> > > > > perform respective action locally, then they reply to coordinator, then
> > > > > coordinator reply to the client, no need a kind of "full" map over
> > > > > discovery again. The only situation when another message over ring is
> > > > > required, is when some node failed to execute local operation (for
> > > > whatever
> > > > > reason) and corrective action is required.
> > > > >
> > > > > Am I missing something?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:50 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradurvs@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Denis, I suggested new names above in the thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please, look at PME document [1] is should be quiet actual to show
> > > the
> > > > > > same flow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/%28Partition+Map%29+Exchange+-+under+the+hood
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:43 AM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > dmekhanikov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, the service assignment is implemented in a way,
> > > > > > > that allows every node calculate the assignment itself, so no
> > > > information
> > > > > > > needs to be shared.
> > > > > > > The only data, that is sent between nodes is deployment results,
> > > > > > > and I don't see an analogy with exchange here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 11:16, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you please explain in what situation coordinator needs to
> > > > collect
> > > > > > > > service deployments info from all nodes and share it with the
> > > > cluster?
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > cannot remember from our design discussion when it is needed.
> > > > Global
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > normally shared through discovery and only on node join, In this
> > > > case
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > use "DiscoveryDataBags", not separate messages.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > > daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think request-response is not suitable terms.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nodes send to coordinator maps of actual service deployments
> > > > which
> > > > > > > > > contains what count of instances of each service node hosts
> > > > locally.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Coordinator sends to the cluster the full map of deployments
> > > > across
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:04 AM Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I do not know what is correct term :-) What I said is that
> > > > > > "exchange"
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > counter intuitive here. There is no "exchange", instead nodes
> > > > send
> > > > > > > > > > information to coordinator that they finished some operation.
> > > > E.g.
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > the same for schema changes (index creation), and as Denis
> > > > > > suggested,
> > > > > > > > > > Request-Response is correct suffixes here. Message name
> > > should
> > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > really happened, instead of describing things which are
> > > > somewhat
> > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > internal flow.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > > nizhikov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What is correct term?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov
> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We
> > > > > > should not
> > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > same term for different things.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > > > > > > dmekhanikov@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for
> > > > taking so
> > > > > > > > long.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I posted the first portion of review comments
> > > yesterday.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > > comments
> > > > > > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I see, that you called things analogously to partition
> > > > map
> > > > > > > > > exchange.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures,
> > > > but I
> > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The partition map exchange is called this way because
> > > it
> > > > > > involves
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > actual
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exchange of information.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions
> > > they
> > > > > > have,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > their states are.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so
> > > I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > skip the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "exchange" part.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And *single message ->* *full message* look more like
> > > > > > *request ->
> > > > > > > > > > > > response*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in case of services.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to
> > > > something
> > > > > > else.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my
> > > > > > > > colleague a
> > > > > > > > > > > word
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "exchange",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and get "which one?" in return.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous
> > > to
> > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > else.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > > > > > daradurvs@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Mime
View raw message