To me it sounds rather as an aesthetic change. Is it really worth breaking the API for this?
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > The heartbeats frequency has to be lower than the failure detection > timeout. This is why we decided to calculate the former basing on a value > set for the latter rather than making a user to adjust both properties > properly. This is how both parameters became related some time ago :) > > Honestly, I don’t think that the javadoc improvement will make things > clearer for the users. Hope you will agree that people pay attention to the > naming first and, only if the naming makes sense to them, learn more about > the details referring to the javadoc. > > — > Denis > > > On Feb 27, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Hm... I don't think that heartbeat frequency has to be associated with > > failure detection. What if we just update the javadoc for this parameter, > > stating that it has to do with metrics update only? > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Igniters, > >> > >> Long time ago we updated the logic in discovery SPI that issues > heartbeats > >> messages from one node to another. Presently, heartbeats frequency is > >> calculated basing on IgniteConfiguration.failureDetectionTimeout > meaning > >> that TcpDiscoverySpi.heartbeatsFrequency has nothing to do with > >> heartbeats frequency at all. > >> > >> TcpDiscoverySpi.heartbeatsFrequency defines a frequency for metrics > >> message. So, I propose to rename this method in Apache Igntie 2.0 to > >> something more meaningful like TcpDiscoverySpi.metricsUpdateFrequency? > >> > >> Do you agree? Alternatives thoughts? > >> > >> — > >> Denis > >
