Okay. Will do it shortly. On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> 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 <yzhda...@apache.org> > 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 < > alexander.fedot...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > 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 < > > > alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Sure. Will take a look. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> > > > 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 < > > > >> alexander.fedot...@gmail.com>: > > > >> > > > >> > 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. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Alexander. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Kind regards, > > > Alexander. > > > > > > -- Kind regards, Alex.
