I also agree (I think). Would prohibiting nulls also make sense? On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> +1 > > User should have minimal chance to do a mistake in common scenarios. > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Ivan V. <iveselovs...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, dev, > > currently IGFS URI has form > > igfs://[igfs-name[:grid-name]]@[host[:port]]/[path] . > > This connection can be established with "in-process" routine (used mostly > > in tests), or with SHMEM, or with TCP protocol. > > Current logic of "igfs-name" and "grid-name" handling is as follows. > > In case of in-proc routine the Ignite process is asked for named Grid and > > its IGFS, null names mean default instances. > > In case of external process connection (to "host:port" specified in the > > URI) there is a restriction that the name of connected IGFS and Grid must > > exactly match "igfs-name" and "grid-name" specified in the URI. But that > > rule leads to the following (may be unexpected) behavior: if URI is > > "igfs://localhost:10500/", the IGFS name and Grid names are null-s, and > the > > name match rule requires the connected IGFS and Grid to be default. And > if > > that is not the case, an exception is thrown. This situation has happened > > with a user, and described in > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1566 . > > In order to fix the problem and improve the usability, I would suggest to > > relax the name handling logic in the following way: in case of external > > connection treat unspecified Igfs and Grid names as a direction to > connect > > to the Grid/Igfs that owns the connection port (not more than one such > pair > > exists). > > Any objections, corrections, thoughts? > > Thanks in advance. > > >
