Alexey, can you explain what an offline node means, if it is not an endpoint? Can it become an online node? If you could describe the transition steps of how a node goes offline and online, it would help.
D. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > wrote: > Why not? To me, the endpoint in the name suggests that this is something > intended to connect to, however, the interface just denotes a node that can > be offline, so I think it still has to be a 'Node'. > > 2017-11-06 22:52 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > Got it. In that case, I do not think that BaselineNode is a correct > > abstraction. How about ClusterEndpoint? > > > > D. > > > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 2:12 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > The main point of having a BaselineNode interface is that baseline > > topology > > > will contain nodes even when they are offline. When a node is offline, > > most > > > of the methods on ClusterNode are meaningless, thus the new interface > > (for > > > example, node ID). I left on the interface only methods which will > > reliably > > > return data. > > > > > > Ilya, > > > > > > For now, we must keep the old AffinityFunction interface, but we can > > change > > > it in the AI 3.0. > > > > > > --AG > > > > > > 2017-11-04 17:56 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > Alexey, what is the point of BaselineNode interface? Why not just > have > > > > ClusterNode? > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > > > We are getting closer to the baseline topology finalization. As a > > first > > > > > step, I would like to request a review of the baseline topology > > > > management > > > > > API. The changes are summarized in [1]. In my opinion, changes are > > > quite > > > > > simple and concise. Also, as a side note, I suggest moving cluster > > > > > activation methods to the IgniteCluter facade as well because the > > > facade > > > > > itself looks like a good place for management API. Looks like the > > > > original > > > > > decision to place it on Ignite was wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5850 > > > > > > > > > > 2017-09-04 17:46 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:13 AM, Sergey Chugunov < > > > > > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea of ClusterActivator interface. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From user perspective it provides the same functionality as the > > > > setter > > > > > > but > > > > > > > in more clear and intuitive way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I made a naming mistake in the original email. The setter > name > > > > > should > > > > > > be "setClusterActivator(...). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also it gives us a good place to put all the documentation > about > > > the > > > > > > > feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree. Another advantage is that users can now provide custom > logic > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > > initial cluster activation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any other opinions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexey Goncharuk, given that you provided the initial > > implementation > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > cluster activation, can you please take a look at this design and > > > > provide > > > > > > comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *interface ClusterActivator {* > > > > > > > > > * boolean activate(Collection<IgniteNode> nodes);**}* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Out of the box, we can provide this implementation of the > > > > activation > > > > > > > > filter: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *ClusterInitialActiveSet implements ClusterActivator { * > > > > > > > > > * InigeInitialActiveSet(String... addresses);**}* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then user configuration can look as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *IgniteConfiguration.setActivationFilter(new > > > > > > > > > ClusterInitialActiveSet("1.2.3.4", "4.3.2.1", etc));* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Sergey Chugunov < > > > > > > > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea is interesting however I cannot come up with a > clear > > > use > > > > > > case > > > > > > > > > which can be widely adopted. > > > > > > > > > I would give users a simple API at first to cover 80% of > > their > > > > > needs > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > then collect some feedback and start thinking about adding > > new > > > > > > > > > functionality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Makes sense? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergey. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hm... Can we also ask user to optionally provide a > > predicate > > > > > which > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > receive a collection of nodes started so far and return > > true > > > if > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > activation should happen? Will it be useful? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Sergey Chugunov < > > > > > > > > > > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nick, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I summed up in this thread above, calling setter for > > > > initial > > > > > > > > > > activation > > > > > > > > > > > nodes is not the only option: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. user starts up new cluster of desired number of > > nodes > > > > and > > > > > > > > > activates > > > > > > > > > > > it using existing API. > > > > > > > > > > > BLT is created with all nodes presented in the > cluster > > > at > > > > > the > > > > > > > > moment > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > activation, no API is needed; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. user prepares BLT using web-console or visor CMD > > > tools > > > > > and > > > > > > > sets > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > the cluster. New API setter is needed: > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite.activation().setInitialActivationNodes( > > > Collection< > > > > > > > > > ClusterNode> > > > > > > > > > > > nodes); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. user provides via static configuration a list of > > > nodes > > > > > that > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > expected to be in the cluster. > > > > > > > > > > > User starts nodes one by one; when all preconfigured > > > nodes > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > started > > > > > > > > > > > cluster is activated and BLT is created. > > > > > > > > > > > As list of nodes may be huge it is provided via > > separate > > > > > file > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > > > > > > flooding main configuration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the option you proposed is already in the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for idea of activating cluster based only on number > of > > > > nodes > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > risky. > > > > > > > > > > > E.g. if user starts up with data stored on disk and > > > > unexpected > > > > > > node > > > > > > > > > joins > > > > > > > > > > > the topology. > > > > > > > > > > > Cluster will get activated with N-1 nodes where all the > > > data > > > > is > > > > > > > > > presented > > > > > > > > > > > and one node completely empty. Data loss may happen in > > such > > > > > > > scenario. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > Sergey. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Nick Pordash < > > > > > > > nickpord...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is a user expected to produce a collection of > > > > ClusterNode > > > > > > > prior > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > of the expected nodes joining? Users don't create > > > instances > > > > > of > > > > > > > > this, > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > far as I can tell it would have to be retrieved from > > > > > > > IgniteCluster. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, would doing that and calling the proposed > > method > > > > be > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > different than calling Ignite.activate and using the > > > > current > > > > > > set > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > server > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes as that collection? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From a user's perspective is it really necessary that > > > > > specific > > > > > > > > nodes > > > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > > > to be identified vs saying that they expect N server > > > nodes > > > > to > > > > > > be > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster for auto activation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 1:23 AM Sergey Chugunov < > > > > > > > > > > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I see your point and I think you're right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can give end-user a simple setter like > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite::activation::setInitialActivationNodes( > > > > > > > > > > Collection<ClusterNode> > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes) to provide collection of nodes that grid > must > > > > reach > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > activate > > > > > > > > > > > > > automatically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And then using the collection we'll create > > > > BaselineTopology > > > > > > > > > > abstraction > > > > > > > > > > > > > internally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a result user won't be exposed to our internal > > > > > > abstractions > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > work with intuitive concept of collection of nodes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergey. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan > < > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergey, the interface you are suggesting is > > internal, > > > > not > > > > > > > > > external. > > > > > > > > > > > Why > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should user ever see it or care about it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Sergey Chugunov > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It was my misunderstanding, I believe that > setter > > > is > > > > > not > > > > > > > > enough > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a full-fledged entity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We should also be able to check if BLTs are > > > > compatible. > > > > > > > > > Interface > > > > > > > > > > > > looks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like this and use case for this functionality > is > > > > > > described > > > > > > > > > below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interface BaselineTopology { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Collection<ClusterNode> nodes(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > boolean isCompatibleWith(BaselineTopology > > blt); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's consider the following scenario: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We have a grid with N nodes: it is up, > > active > > > > and > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > data > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLT #1 created. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We shutdown the grid. Then divide it into > > two > > > > > > parts: > > > > > > > > > > > Part1_grid > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part2_grid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. We start and activate Part1_grid . > Topology > > > has > > > > > > > changed > > > > > > > > > -> > > > > > > > > > > > > BLT#2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After that we shutdown that Part1_grid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. We start and activate Part2_grid. > Topology > > > also > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > changed > > > > > > > > > > > -> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLT#3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Then we start Part1_grid and it's nodes > try > > > to > > > > > join > > > > > > > > > > > Part2_grid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If join is successful we have an undefined > state > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > > > resulting > > > > > > > > > > > > grid: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values for the same key may (and will) differ > > > between > > > > > > grid > > > > > > > > > parts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So to prevent this we should keep nodes with > > BLT#2 > > > > from > > > > > > > > joining > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > grid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with BLT#3. And we should fail nodes with an > > error > > > > > > message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergey. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Dmitriy > > Setrakyan > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergey, I am still confused. What is the > > > > > > BaselineTopology > > > > > > > > > > > interface > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example? I thought that you agreed with me > that > > > we > > > > > > simply > > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > setter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activation nodes, no? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Sergey > > Chugunov > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I understand you use the term > > > > > > > "minimalActivationNodes" > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > synonym > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BaselineTopology concept. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In that case I agree with you that we can > > > replace > > > > > > both > > > > > > > > > > > > "establish*" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > methods > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a simple setter method (see below in > > > > summary). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Summing up the whole discussion I see the > > > > > > functionality > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > following: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New concept BaselineTopology is introduced. > > The > > > > > main > > > > > > > > > features > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enables > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. automatic activation of cluster; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. easy management of cluster topology > > > changes > > > > > > > > (planned > > > > > > > > > > > nodes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maintenance, adding new nodes etc); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. eliminating of rebalancing traffic on > > > > > > short-term > > > > > > > > node > > > > > > > > > > > > > failures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Use cases to create BLT: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. user starts up new cluster of desired > > > > number > > > > > of > > > > > > > > nodes > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > activates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it using existing API. BLT is created > with > > > all > > > > > > nodes > > > > > > > > > > > presented > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster at the moment of activation, no > > API > > > is > > > > > > > needed; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. user prepares BLT using web-console > or > > > > visor > > > > > > CMD > > > > > > > > > tools > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > sets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the cluster. New API setter is needed: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite.activation().setBaselin > > > > > > > > > eTopology(BaselineTopology > > > > > > > > > > > > blt); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. user provides via static > configuration > > a > > > > list > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > nodes > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected to be in the cluster. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > User starts nodes one by one; when all > > > > > > preconfigured > > > > > > > > > nodes > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster is activated and BLT is created. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As list of nodes may be huge it is > > provided > > > > via > > > > > > > > separate > > > > > > > > > > > file > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > flooding main configuration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, does this description match with > > your > > > > > > > > > understanding > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functionality? If it does I'll create a set > > of > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > start > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > working > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergey. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Dmitriy > > > > Setrakyan > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still do not see why anyone would > > > explicitly > > > > > call > > > > > > > > > these 2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > methods: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Ignite::activation:: > > > > > establishBaselineTopology();* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Ignite::activation:: > > > > establishBaselineTopology( > > > > > > > > > > > > BaselineTopology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bltTop);* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, if a web console, or some > > other > > > > > admin > > > > > > > > > process, > > > > > > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > automatically set currently started nodes > > as > > > > the > > > > > > > > baseline > > > > > > > > > > > > > topology, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shouldn't they just call a setter for > > > > > > > > > > minimalActivationNodes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Alexey > > > > > Dmitriev < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > admitr...@gridgain.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API is proposed in the head of the > thread > > > by > > > > > > > Sergey, > > > > > > > > > as I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understood: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________ > > > > > > > > ________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API for BaselineTopology manipulation > may > > > > look > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Ignite::activation:: > > > > > > establishBaselineTopology();* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Ignite::activation:: > > > > > establishBaselineTopology( > > > > > > > > > > > > BaselineTopology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bltTop);* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both methods will establish BT and > > activate > > > > > > cluster > > > > > > > > > once > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > established. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first one allows user to establish > BT > > > > using > > > > > > > > current > > > > > > > > > > > > > topology. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes happen to the topology during > > > > > > establishing > > > > > > > > > > process, > > > > > > > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > notified and allowed to proceed or > abort > > > the > > > > > > > > procedure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second method allows to use some > > > > > > > > > monitoring'n'management > > > > > > > > > > > > tools > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WebConsole where user can prepare a > list > > of > > > > > > nodes, > > > > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > create > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and send to the cluster a command to > > > finally > > > > > > > > establish > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From high level BaselineTopology entity > > > > > contains > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > > > > collection > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *BaselineTopology {* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Collection<TopologyNode> nodes;* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *}* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *TopologyNode* here contains > information > > > > about > > > > > > > node - > > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consistent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > id > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of user attributes used to > calculate > > > > > affinity > > > > > > > > > > function. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________ > > > ______________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > View this message in context: > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > developers.2346864.n4.nabble. > > > > > > > > > > com/Cluster-auto-activation- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > design-proposal-tp20295p21066.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers > > > > mailing > > > > > > list > > > > > > > > > > archive > > > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
