Alexander, May I ask you to update Apache Ignite 2.0 migration guide? https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
There you need to say that IgniteConfiguration.gridNama parameter has been changed to the other one that behaves this or that way. — Denis > On Mar 13, 2017, at 4:37 AM, Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com> wrote: > > Thank you Alexander, I merged these changes. > > I recommend everybody get latest chages from ignite-2.0. > > Thanks! > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Alexander Fedotov < > alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> PR updated >> >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Alexander Fedotov < >> alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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.o >>>> rg/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/vi >>>> ewLog.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+I >>>> gnite+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. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Kind regards, >> Alex. >>
