Denis, yes you are right, there is a reason for this. It's the case when one of a participated node leaves a cluster and loader send a request to the next node. Also, the list of participated nodes is limited enough. Thus, the proposed improvement a) is wrong.
But I think the point b) is still actual. Thank you for the feedback! ср, 25 сент. 2019 г. в 01:32, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > Denis, > > Why do we broadcast the request to all the nodes in case of scenario a)? > There should be a reason for that. > > Alex Goncharuk, do you remember we planned to revisit the P2P as part of > Ignite 3.0 to remove certain limitations? How about linking all the P2P > tasks together and create either an IEP or an umbrella ticket. > > - > Denis > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 12:55 AM Denis Garus <garus....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Igniters! > > > > I would like to propose a few improvements for the P2P class loading > > feature in Ignite. > > These improvements have the aim to reduce the number of requests that may > > be needing to get a class on a remote node. > > > > a. We should send a request for a class to the node initiator firstly. > > Currently, GridDeploymentClassLoader sends a request for a class to all > > participated nodes one by one until it gets a successful response. > However, > > in most cases, the required byte code would be loaded from the node that > > initiates execution. To find out what is the node initiator, we can use > the > > way that we use to determine a security context to execute a user-defined > > code (see GridIoManager#invokeListener). If the node initiator doesn't > have > > a required class, we should ask other participated nodes as it is > > currently. > > > > b. Some classes in a single response. > > When a required class contains anonymous and/or inner classes, Ignite > tries > > to get these classes using separate requests. However, we can determine > > that case and send data, that we send anyway, in a single response as an > > answer for the first request. In this way, we may significantly reduce > the > > number of communications required for a class loading. > > > > What do you think? > > > > I would like to create a separate task for a. and b. > > >
