Alexander, I see there are conflicts again, could you plase resolve them, I'm going to review and merge these changes today.
Thanks! On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > >
