> We have IgniteServiceProcessor and GridServiceProcessor with singular
> "Service"
Maybe we should rename new 'IgniteServiceProcessor' to
'IgniteServicesProcessor'?
> And ServiceSingleDeploymentsResults name doesn't make sense to me.
> "Single deployments" doesn't sound right.
'Single' means 'single node', maybe we should use one of the following:
- 'ServicesSingleNodeDeploymentsResults'
- 'ServicesNodeDeploymentsResults'
- 'ServicesInstanceDeploymentsResults'
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:26 PM Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Slava,
> I think, it's better to replace word "Change" with "Request".
>
> Nik,
> We have IgniteServiceProcessor and GridServiceProcessor with singular
> "Service",
> ServicesDeploymentManager and ServicesDeploymentTask with plural "Services"
> for some reason.
> So, you need to remember, where Service and where Services is used.
> I think, we should unify these names.
> And ServiceSingleDeploymentsResults name doesn't make sense to me.
> "Single deployments" doesn't sound right.
>
> ServicesFullDeploymentsMessage is derived
> from GridDhtPartitionsFullMessage.
> It doesn't really reflect its function. This message is supposed to mark
> the point in time, when deployment is finished.
>
> Denis
>
>
> пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 11:30, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>:
>
> > >*1. Testing of the cache-based implementation of the service grid.*
> > > I think, we should make a test suite, that will test the old
> > implementation
> > > until we remove it from the project.
> >
> > Agree. This is exactly what should be done as the first step once
> > phase 1 will be merged.
> > I think all tests in the package:
> > "org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.service" should be moved to
> > separate test-suite and new build-plan should be added on TC and
> > included in RunAll.
> >
> > > *2. DynamicServiceChangeRequest.*
> > > I think, this class should be splat into two.
> >
> > Personally, I agree, but I have faced opposition at the design step.
> > I changed to the following structure:
> >
> > abstract class ServiceAbstractChange implements Serializable {
> > protected final IgniteUuid srvcId;
> > }
> >
> > class ServiceDeploymentChange extends ServiceAbstractChange {
> > ServiceConfiguration cfg;
> > }
> >
> > class ServiceUndeploymentChange extends ServiceAbstractChange { }
> >
> > I hope that further reviewers will agree with us.
> >
> > > *3. Naming.*
> >
> > About "Services" -> "Service" and "Deployments" -> "Deployment"
> > Personally, I agree with Nikolay, because it's more descriptive since
> > manages several services, not single.
> > But, I understand Denis's point of view, we have a lot of classes with
> > "Service" prefix in naming and "Services" looks a bit alien.
> >
> > > *DynamicServicesChangeRequestBatchMessage -> DynamicServiceChangeRequest*
> > Prefix "Dynamic" has no sense anymore since we reworked message
> > structure as in p.2. so "ServiceChangeBatchRequest" will be better
> > name.
> >
> > > *ServicesSingleDeploymentsMessage -> ServiceDeploymentResponse*
> > It's not a response and is not sent to the sender. This message is
> > sent to the coordinator and contains *single node* deployments.
> >
> > > *ServicesFullDeploymentsMessage -> ServiceDeploymentFinishMessage*
> > This should be named similar way as the previous one, but the message
> > contains deployments of *full set of nodes*.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:58 AM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, Denis.
> > >
> > > Great news.
> > >
> > > > *1. Testing of the cache-based implementation of the service grid.*
> > > > I think, we should make a test suite, that will test the old
> > implementation> until we> remove it from the project.
> > >
> > > Aggree. Let's do it.
> > >
> > > > *2. DynamicServiceChangeRequest.*
> > > > I think, this class should be splat into two.
> > >
> > > Agree. Lets's do it.
> > >
> > > > *ServicesDeploymentManager*, *ServicesDeploymentTask *and all other
> > classes> with Services word in them.
> > > > I think, they would look better if we use a singular word *Service
> > *instead.
> > > > Same for *Deployments*.
> > >
> > > Personally, I want that names as clearly as possible reflects class
> > content for reader.
> > > If we deploy *several* services then it has to be Service*S*.
> > >
> > > Same for deployment - if this message will initiate single deployment
> > process then it should use deployment.
> > > otherwise - deployments.
> > >
> > > So my opinion - it's better to keep current naming.
> > >
> > > В Чт, 13/12/2018 в 19:36 +0300, Denis Mekhanikov пишет:
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I've been looking through the PR by Vyacheslav for past few weeks.
> > > > Slava, great job! You've done an impressive amount of work.
> > > >
> > > > I posted my comments to the PR and had a few calls with Slava.
> > > > I am close to finishing my review.
> > > > There are some points, that I'd like to settle in this discussion to
> > avoid
> > > > controversy.
> > > >
> > > > *1. Testing of the cache-based implementation of the service grid.*
> > > > I think, we should make a test suite, that will test the old
> > implementation
> > > > until we
> > > > remove it from the project.
> > > >
> > > > *2. DynamicServiceChangeRequest.*
> > > > I think, this class should be splat into two.
> > > > I don't see any point in having a single class with "*flags"* field,
> > that
> > > > shows, what action it actually represents.
> > > > Usage of *deploy(), markDeploy(...), undeploy(), markUndeploy(...)*
> > looks
> > > > wrong.
> > > > Why not have a separate message type for each action instead?
> > > >
> > > > *3. Naming.*
> > > > I suggest renaming the following classes:
> > > > *ServicesDeploymentManager*, *ServicesDeploymentTask *and all other
> > classes
> > > > with Services word in them.
> > > > I think, they would look better if we use a singular word *Service
> > *instead.
> > > > Same for *Deployments*.
> > > > I propose the following class names:
> > > >
> > > > *ServicesDeploymentManager -> ServiceDeploymentManager*
> > > > *ServicesDeploymentActions -> ServiceDeploymentActions*
> > > > *ServicesDeploymentTask -> ServiceDeploymentTask*
> > > > *ServicesCommonDiscoveryData -> ServiceCommonDiscoveryData*
> > > > *ServicesJoinNodeDiscoveryData -> ServiceJoiningNodeDiscoveryData*
> > > >
> > > > *DynamicServicesChangeRequestBatchMessage ->
> > DynamicServiceChangeRequest*
> > > > *ServicesSingleDeploymentsMessage -> ServiceDeploymentResponse*
> > > > *ServicesFullDeploymentsMessage -> ServiceDeploymentFinishMessage*
> > > >
> > > > *ServiceSingleDeploymentsResults -> ServiceSingleDeploymentResult*
> > > > *ServiceFullDeploymentsResults -> ServiceFullDeploymentResult*
> > > >
> > > > Let's do this as the final step of the code review to avoid repeated
> > > > renaming.
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 15:21, Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhani...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Alexey,
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see any problem in letting services work on a deactivated
> > cluster.
> > > > > All services need is discovery messages and compute tasks.
> > > > > Both of these features are available at all times.
> > > > >
> > > > > But it should be configurable. Services may need caches for their
> > work,
> > > > > so it's better to undeploy such services on cluster deactivation.
> > > > > We may introduce a new property in ServiceConfiguration.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think, this topic deserves a separate discussion.
> > > > > Could you start another thread?
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:27, Alexey Kuznetsov <akuznet...@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Vyacheslav!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm thinking about to use Services API to implement Web Agent as a
> > cluster
> > > > > > singleton service.
> > > > > > It will improve Web Console UX, because it will not needed to start
> > > > > > separate java program.
> > > > > > Just start cluster with Web agent enabled on cluster configuration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But in order to do this, I need that services should:
> > > > > > 1) Work when cluster NOT ACTIVE.
> > > > > > 2) Auto restart with cluster (when cluster was restarted).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could we support mentioned features on "Service Grid redesign -
> > phase 2" ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please let me know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >
--
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
