Anton,
How does topology change break this functionality? Closures executed with
affinityRun/Call fail over in the same way as any ComputeJob.
-Val
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Anton Vinogradov <avinogra...@gridgain.com>
wrote:
> Alexei,
>
> > How would task know the partition it is running over ?
> Not sure it necessary.
> You'll create pair partition-job at task's map phase.
>
> > How can I assign task for each cache partition ?
> Just implement map method generates map with size equals to partition
> count.
>
> > How can I enforce partition reservation if task works with multiple
> caches at once ?
> This possible only in case caches use safe affinity function.
> And it useful only it this case.
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Alexei Scherbakov <
> alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Please read job instead task
> >
> > 2017-07-25 15:20 GMT+03:00 Alexei Scherbakov <
> alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Main point of the issue is to provide clean API for working with
> > > computations requiring data collocation
> > >
> > > affinityCall/Run provide the ability to run closure near data, but
> > > map/reduce API is a way reacher: continuous mapping, task session, etc.
> > >
> > > As for proposed API, I do not understand fully how it solves the
> problem.
> > >
> > > Maxim, please provide detailed javadoc for each method and each
> argument
> > > for presented API, and the answers to the following questions:
> > >
> > > 1. How would task know the partition it is running over ?
> > >
> > > 2. How can I assign task for each cache partition ?
> > >
> > > 3. How can I enforce partition reservation if task works with multiple
> > > caches at once ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-07-25 12:30 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <avinogra...@gridgain.com
> >:
> > >
> > >> Val,
> > >>
> > >> Sure, we can, but we'd like to use map/reduce without fearing that
> > >> topology
> > >> can change.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Anton,
> > >> >
> > >> > You can call affinityCallAsync multiple times and then reduce
> locally.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Val
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > >> > avinogra...@gridgain.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Val,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > What is the use case for which current affinityRun/Call API
> > doesn't
> > >> > work?
> > >> > > It does not work for map/reduce.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Maxim,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > The issue is that it's currently assumed to support job mapping,
> > >> but it
> > >> > > > actually doesn't. However, I agree that AffinityKeyMapped
> > annotation
> > >> > > > doesn't fit the use case well. Let's fix documentation and
> JavaDoc
> > >> > then.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > As for the proposed API, it's overcomplicated, took me 15
> minutes
> > to
> > >> > > > understand what it does :)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > What is the use case for which current affinityRun/Call API
> > doesn't
> > >> > work?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -Val
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Kozlov Maxim <
> > dreamx....@gmail.com
> > >> >
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Valentin,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > The author of tiket wants to see to provide some API allows to
> > map
> > >> > > > > ComputeJobs to partitions or keys. If we use
> @AffinityKeyMapped
> > >> then
> > >> > > you
> > >> > > > > need to enter the cache name parameter, I think this is not
> > >> > convenient
> > >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > the user. Therefore, I propose to extend the existing API.
> > >> > > > > Having consulted with Anton V. decided to make a separate
> > >> interface
> > >> > > > > ReducibleTask, which will allow us to have different map logic
> > at
> > >> > each
> > >> > > > > inheritor.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Old method, allows to map to node
> > >> > > > > public interface ComputeTask<T, R> extends ReducibleTask<R> {
> > >> > > > > @Nullable public Map<? extends ComputeJob, ClusterNode>
> > >> > > > > map(List<ClusterNode> subgrid, @Nullable T arg) throws
> > >> > IgniteException;
> > >> > > > > }
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Brand new method with mapping to partitions, which solves
> > topology
> > >> > > change
> > >> > > > > issues.
> > >> > > > > public interface AffinityComputeTask<T, R> extends
> > >> ReducibleTask<R> {
> > >> > > > > @Nullable public Map<? extends ComputeJob, Integer>
> > >> > > > map(@NotnullString
> > >> > > > > cacheName, List<Integer> partIds, @Nullable T arg) throws
> > >> > > > IgniteException;
> > >> > > > > }
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > public interface ReducibleTask<R> extends Serializable {
> > >> > > > > public ComputeJobResultPolicy result(ComputeJobResult res,
> > >> > > > > List<ComputeJobResult> rcvd) throws IgniteException;
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > @Nullable public R reduce(List<ComputeJobResult> results)
> > >> throws
> > >> > > > > IgniteException;
> > >> > > > > }
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > We also need to implement AffinityComputeTaskAdapter and
> > >> > > > > AffinityComputeTaskSplitAdapter, for implementation by
> default.
> > >> It
> > >> > is
> > >> > > > > right?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > In the IgniteCompute add:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > @IgniteAsyncSupported
> > >> > > > > public <T, R> R affinityExecute(Class<? extends
> > >> > AffinityComputeTask<T,
> > >> > > > R>>
> > >> > > > > taskCls, List<Integer> partIds, @Nullable T arg) throws
> > >> > > IgniteException;
> > >> > > > > @IgniteAsyncSupported
> > >> > > > > public <T, R> R affinityExecute(AffinityComputeTask<T, R>
> task,
> > >> > > > > List<Integer> partIds, @Nullable T arg) throws
> IgniteException;
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > public <T, R> ComputeTaskFuture<R>
> affinityExecuteAsync(Class<?
> > >> > extends
> > >> > > > > AffinityComputeTask<T, R>> taskCls, List<Integer> partIds,
> > >> @Nullable
> > >> > T
> > >> > > > arg)
> > >> > > > > throws IgniteException;
> > >> > > > > public <T, R> ComputeTaskFuture<R> affinityExecuteAsync(
> > >> > > > AffinityComputeTask<T,
> > >> > > > > R> task, List<Integer> partIds, @Nullable T arg) throws
> > >> > > IgniteException;
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > How do you like this idea or do you insist that you need to
> use
> > >> > > > > @AffinityKeyMapped to solve the problem?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > 13 июля 2017 г., в 6:36, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> написал(а):
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Hi Max,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > This ticket doesn't assume any API changes, it's about
> broken
> > >> > > > > > functionality. I would start with checking what tests we
> have
> > >> > > > > > for @AffinityKeyMapped and creating missing one. From what I
> > >> > > understand
> > >> > > > > > functionality is broken completely or almost completely, so
> I
> > >> guess
> > >> > > > > testing
> > >> > > > > > coverage is very weak there.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > -Val
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Kozlov Maxim <
> > >> > dreamx....@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >> Igniters,
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5037 <
> > >> > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5037>
> > >> > > > > >> How do you look to solve this ticket by adding two methods
> to
> > >> the
> > >> > > > public
> > >> > > > > >> IgniteCompute API?
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> @IgniteAsyncSupported
> > >> > > > > >> public void affinityRun(@NotNull Collection<String>
> > cacheNames,
> > >> > > > > >> Collection<Object> keys, IgniteRunnable job)
> > >> > > > > >> throws IgniteException;
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> @IgniteAsyncSupported
> > >> > > > > >> public <R> R affinityCall(@NotNull Collection<String>
> > >> cacheNames,
> > >> > > > > >> Collection<Object> keys, IgniteCallable<R> job)
> > >> > > > > >> throws IgniteException;
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> There is also a question of how to act when changing the
> > >> topology
> > >> > > > during
> > >> > > > > >> the execution of the job.
> > >> > > > > >> 1) complete with an exception;
> > >> > > > > >> 2) stop execution and wait until the topology is rebuilt
> and
> > >> > > continue
> > >> > > > > >> execution;
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> I think the second way, do you think?
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> --
> > >> > > > > >> Best Regards,
> > >> > > > > >> Max K.
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > > Best Regards,
> > >> > > > > Max K.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Alexei Scherbakov
> >
>
