Thanks, Alex! Sam, can you please also take a look to make sure we catch all possible issues on review? Let's merge this on Monday since this is very conflict-prone change.
--Yakov 2017-03-10 12:57 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <[email protected]>: > Hi, > PR updated. Currently no conflicts at > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435. > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Alexander Fedotov < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Sure. Will take a look. > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Alexander, > >> > >> Page https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435 reports several > >> conflicts. > >> Can you please check and resolve if necessary. Then resubmit for review > >> again. > >> > >> --Yakov > >> > >> 2017-03-03 13:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov < > >> [email protected]>: > >> > >> > 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 <[email protected]> > >> > 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 < > >> > [email protected] > >> > > >: > >> > > > >> > > > 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 < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > > 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 < > >> > > > > [email protected]> 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 < > >> > > > > > [email protected]> 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 < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > > > 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 < > >> > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 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 < > >> > > > > > >> > [email protected]> 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 < > >> > > > > > >> >> [email protected]> 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" > >> < > >> > > > > > >> >>> [email protected]> 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 < > >> > > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName' suits > >> better > >> > > > > > considering > >> > > > > > >> >>> your > >> > > > > > >> >>>> explanation. > >> > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> -- > >> > > > > > >> >>>> Denis > >> > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin Kulichenko < > >> > > > > > >> >>>> [email protected]> 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 < > >> > > > > [email protected] > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> 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 < > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> [email protected]> 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" < > >> > > > > > >> >>>> [email protected]> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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 < > >> > > > > > >> >>>> [email protected]> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of this > >> > > > configuration > >> > > > > > >> >>>> parameter? > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda < > >> > > > > > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> 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 < > >> > > > > > >> >>>> [email protected] > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda < > >> > > > > > >> >> [email protected]> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> 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. > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Kind regards, > > Alexander. > > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Alexander. >
