Hi, it's ready for review http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> wrote: > Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status of this ticket and > further steps? > > --Yakov > > 2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <alexander.fedot...@gmail.com > >: > > > Done. But it looks like something went wrong since Upsource reports: > > "Review has too many files (1244), aborting". > > > > Also guys, I believe we need to merge this change in short time because > > it's targeted for 2.0 and chances for a conflict are high. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Alexander, > > > > > > Please name the review appropriately and link it in the ticket as > > > described: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+ > > > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Pavel > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Fedotov < > > > alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Kind regards, > > Alexander. > > > -- Kind regards, Alexander.
