Dmitry, I think Anton meant AtomicsConfiguration, not atomic caches.
However, I would make sure we validate all conf parameters.

Anton, can you please share junit test that shows the problem?

Yakov Zhdanov

сб, 7 апр. 2018 г., 6:12 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>:

> I would say absolutely YES - we need to have configuration validation.
>
> Igniters, why was the validation skipped in atomic caches?
>
> D.
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 1:43 PM, akurbanov <antkr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Igniters,
> >
> > I want to address a question on AtomicConfiguration validation. I've
> tested
> > in ignite-1.8 branch that it is impossible to start two nodes with
> > different
> > AtomicConfiguration parameters e.g. different cache modes or numbers of
> > backups are provided.
> > JIRA link: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2096
> >
> > In ignite-2.4 AtomicConfiguration validation is completely skipped on
> node
> > startup and this issue is non-reproducible. Node with alternative
> > configuration successfully joins, but this configuration is being
> > completely
> > ignored, all created atomics will reference the same initial
> configuration
> > and belong to the same cache "ignite-sys-atomic-cache@default-ds-group",
> > even if configuration is provided in constructor.
> >
> > Do we need any kind of validation for this configuration?
> > Would it be correct to use the same approach for atomic types instances
> > caching as used for IgniteQueue/IgniteSet, cache for each unique
> > configuration?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Anton Kurbanov
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> >
>

Reply via email to