Denis, Services reassignment process takes into account previous assignments to avoid redundant redeployments. So, in the described case, ServiceA won't be moved from node1 to node2. On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > Vyacheslav, > > First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and rolling out these new > capabilities. > > Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new architecture avoid > a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For instance, let's > say I have ServiceA running node1, then node2 joins and I don't want the > service to be redeployed to any other node. > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584#ServiceGridredesign.Phase1.Implementationdetails.-Topologychange > > -- > Denis > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584 > > > > Thank you! > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you please > > create a > > > page? > > > > > > ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > I prepared a description of the implemented solution and attached it > > > > to the issue [1]. > > > > > > > > This should help during a review. Should I post the document into wiki > > or > > > > IEP? > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] [2], please? > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607 > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434 > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters! Good news! > > > > > > > > > > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now. > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation. > > > > > > > > > > However, we need additional review from other Ignite experts. > > > > > > > > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2]. > > > > > > > > > > Could someone step in and do the review? > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607 > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434 > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov < > > dmekhani...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel, could you assist? > > > > > > > > > > > > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name instead > > of > > > > its > > > > > > implementation? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, it shouldn't be a problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur < > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes sense > > to me > > > > > > > for Java part. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how it should work for .NET client? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev < > > > > nsamelc...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized > > service's > > > > > > > instance > > > > > > > > > by service's class name and properties map in > > > > {ServiceConfiguration}. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The task describes that we should use > > > > > > > > > {String className} + {Map<String, Object> properties} instead > > > > {Service > > > > > > > > > srvc}. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to clarify the following questions: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. What about public methods? > > > > > > > > > I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name of > > > > provided > > > > > > > > > instance. > > > > > > > > > Also to add deploying methods with new parameters: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Deprecated > > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture<?> > > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup > > > > prj, > > > > > > > > > String > > > > > > > > > name, Service svc) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture<?> > > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup > > > > prj, > > > > > > > > > String > > > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map<String, Object> prop) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this makes sense, but I would like other committers to > > > > confirm. > > > > > > > > Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Is {Map<String, Object> properties} parameter mandatory > > when > > > > > > > deploying a > > > > > > > > > service? > > > > > > > > > Is it make sense to add deploying methods without it? For > > > > example: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture<?> > > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup > > > > prj, > > > > > > > > > String > > > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture<?> > > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup > > > > prj, > > > > > > > > > String > > > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map<String, Object> prop) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would always ask the user to pass the property map, but would > > > > allow it > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > be null. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > >
-- Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
