Dmitry, it's not only about hot redeployment. Denis, I don't see such use case, because of the answer in a different front.
It relates to the best practices of SOA versioning [1] [2]. For example: * we have a cluster with service [name="MySevice", v="1"]; * I want to upgrade service to [name="MySevice", v="2"], but I have clients which are using [name="MySevice", v="1"] and can't stop processing; * With service versioning, we are able to deploy new service near existing service, then switch clients and undeploy outdated service. My only question is: are we going to implement such a feature [3] or not? Maybe PMC don't see such feature in Service Grid roadmap. IMO it's a good feature for a microservices platform. [1] https://www.thbs.com/thbs-insights/soa-service-versioning-best-practices [2] https://www.ibm.com/blogs/bluemix/2017/08/rapidly-developing-applications-part-6-exposing-and-versioning-apis/ [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6069 On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:48 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > > Guys, > > I thought this was about automatic service redeployment, which should have > been a part of the current IEP, no? Can you please clarify? > > D. > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhani...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Vyacheslav, > > > > It looks like an overcomplication to me. > > Could you describe a case, that can be solved using versioning, but not > > naming? > > > > Denis > > > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:56, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Denis, it's not about different users services implementations. > > > > > > A real use case is user's services API versioning which is being used > > > widely t in SOAP/REST microservices infrastructure. > > > > > > In my opinion, it is about services with the same name and the same > > > full class name, but different classes versions for example in > > > different classloaders. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 PM Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhani...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't think, that we really need this feature. > > > > It seems to me, that if you want to use a different implementation of a > > > > service, you can assign a different name to it. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement this > > > > > > feature we should build a base in the first iteration of IEP-17 > > > > > > because of change messages formats. > > > > > > > > > > > > In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to host > > > > > > services with the same name, but with different class/version, we > > > > > > should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s lifecycle > > instead > > > > > > of service’s name. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My only concern would be on the usability side. Is user going to have > > > to > > > > > deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally? > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > -- Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
