Hi, Created Upsource review for the subject: http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov < alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I've completed working on IGNITE-3207 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207 > > Looks like TC test results don't have problems related to my changes > http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=423955&; > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll > > Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435/ > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Support Pavel’s point of view. >> >> Also Alexander please make sure that your changes are merged into >> ignite-2.0 branch rather than to the master. I think this functionality >> has to be available in 2.0 first. Finally, please update 2.0 Migration >> Guide once you’ve finished with this task: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+ >> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf >> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide> >> >> — >> Denis >> >> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > I think we should fix log output as well and replace all "grid" >> occurences >> > with "instance". >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alexander Fedotov < >> > alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I think we should leave null as a default value for unnamed Ignite >> >> instances. At least that change should be considered out of the current >> >> scope. >> >> >> >> What about naming, I'm also renaming log occurrences of "grid" and >> "grid >> >> name" where it stands reasonable. >> >> Are there places in the logging logic where we should prefer name >> "grid" or >> >> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or "Ignite instance >> name" can >> >> be used without any semantic impact? >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander Fedotov < >> >> alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Okay. From the all said above I suppose "instanceName" should work for >> >>> IgniteConfiguration and "igniteInstanceName" in all other places. >> >>> >> >>> Regards, >> >>> Alexander >> >>> >> >>> 31 дек. 2016 г. 3:43 AM пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < >> >>> dsetrak...@apache.org> написал: >> >>> >> >>> It sounds like it must be unique then. I would propose the following: >> >>> >> >>> 1. If user defines the instanceName, then we assign it to the node. >> >>> 2. If user does not define the instance name, then we have to give >> it >> >>> some unique value, like node ID or PID. >> >>> >> >>> Will this change be backward compatible, or should we leave it as >> null if >> >>> user does not define it? >> >>> >> >>> D. >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName' suits better considering >> >>> your >> >>>> explanation. >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Denis >> >>>> >> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin Kulichenko < >> >>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> 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? >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Alexander. >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Kind regards, > Alexander. > -- Kind regards, Alexander.
