This name identifies instance of Ignite, in case there are more than one within an application. Here are our API methods around this:
// We provide a name and get newly started *Ignite* instance. Ignite ignite = Ignition.start(new IgniteConfiguration().setGridName(name)); // We provide a name and get existing *Ignite* instance. Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name); This has nothing to do with nodes. For node representation we have ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId() method for identification. In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will have both nodeName and nodeId in the product, but with absolutely different meaning and used in different parts of API. How user is going to understand the difference between them? In my view, this is even more confusing than current gridName. -Val On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Alexander, frankly speaking I'm still for your original proposal - > nodeName. The uniqueness specificities can be set in the doc. > > -- > Denis > > On Friday, December 30, 2016, Alexander Fedotov < > alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, then may be we should go with one of the below names: > > > > processNodeName > > jvmNodeName > > runtimeNodeName > > processScopedNodeName > > jvmScopedNodeName > > runtimeScopedNodeName > > processWideNodeName > > jvmWideNodeName > > runtimeWideNodeName > > > > Regards, > > Alexander > > > > 31 дек. 2016 г. 12:37 AM пользователь "Denis Magda" <dma...@apache.org> > > написал: > > > > The parameter specifies a node name which has to be unique per JVM > process > > (if you start multiple nodes in a single process). In my understanding it > > was mainly introduced to handle these multiple-nodes-per-JVM scenarios. > > > > However, several nodes can have the same name cluster wide. > > > > — > > Denis > > > > > >> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of this configuration parameter? > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> See Val’s concern in the discussion. I’m absolutely fine with > ‘nodeName’. > >>> > >>> — > >>> Denis > >>> > >>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org > > > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it obvious that the name is > for > >>> the > >>>> local node? > >>> > >>> > > >
