Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We should not use the same term for different things.
вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhani...@gmail.com>: > Vyacheslav, > > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so long. > I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday. > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more comments later. > > I see, that you called things analogously to partition map exchange. > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I don't really > like the idea to use the same names for everything. > The partition map exchange is called this way because it involves an actual > exchange of information. > All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they have, and what > their states are. > > There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I would skip the > "exchange" part. > And *single message ->* *full message* look more like *request -> response* > in case of services. > > Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something else. > Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense. > And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my colleague a word > "exchange", > and get "which one?" in return. > So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to something else. > > What do you think? > > Denis > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>: > > > Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution? > > > > Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no end in > sign. > > > > I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new features > > like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about new > > tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our > > end-users. > > > > But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase. > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of questions. > > Thanks! > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov < > dmekhani...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged. > > > > I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the upcoming > > week. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir. > > > > > > > > > > I'm agree with you. > > > > > > > > > > Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature? > > > > > Without a date or similar. > > > > > Just a list of experts who should review this feature. > > > > > > > > > > В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет: > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We should > > not > > > > > merge > > > > > > it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews are > > ready, > > > > > > irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about quality, > not > > speed. > > > > > > > > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed? > Affinity, > > > > > failure, > > > > > > > etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the wiki > > and > > > > > then > > > > > > > our tech writers will get everything documented. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > -- > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > >
