Nikolay, Should we wait for both of the tickets given that we agreed that we are putting an experimental marker on the new APIs? I'm ok to fix only the first one and add the experimental marker so that we do not delay 2.8 release.
пн, 20 янв. 2020 г. в 13:32, Николай Ижиков <nizhi...@apache.org>: > Andrey. > > Let’s move from the long letters to the code. > If you want to change API - please, propose this changes. > I think everybody wins if we make our API better. > > Please, describe proposed changes. > It would be great if you have some examples or PR for it. > > As for this release, I have plans to contribute tickets > «[IEP-35] Expose MetricRegistry to the public API» [1] and > «[IEP-35] public Java metric API» [2] for it. > > Any objections on it? > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7269 > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553 > > > > 20 янв. 2020 г., в 13:08, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> написал(а): > > > > It solves problem. > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 12:09 PM Alexey Goncharuk > > <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> After giving it some thought, I agree with Denis - there is nothing > wrong > >> with exposing the new APIs, we just need to make it clear that we are > still > >> going to change it. > >> > >> Should we Introduce something like @IgniteExperimental annotation (I > >> believe it has been discussed a dozen of times on the dev-list)? > >> > >> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г. в 23:28, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > >> > >>> +1 to mark feature or whole release as EA. > >>> > >>> пт, 17 янв. 2020 г., 23:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > >>> > >>>> Folks, if you don't mind I'll share some thoughts/suggestions as an > >>>> observer who was not involved in the feature development. > >>>> > >>>> It's absolutely 'ok' to deprecate an API that is replaced with a much > >>>> better version. However, we should do this only when the new APIs are > >>>> production-ready. If there are still many limitations or open items > then > >>>> don't deprecate anything that exists and release the new APIs > labeling as > >>>> early access. What if release the improvements labeling as EA instead > of > >>>> hiding them completely? > >>>> > >>>> I would also encourage us to put aside emotions, don't blame or point > >>>> fingers. This IEP is a great initiative and you both have already > done a > >>>> tremendous job by developing, architecting and reviewing changes. > Just be > >>>> respectful. Nobody is trying to block the feature from being released. > >>>> Everyone would be glad to tap into improvements and start using them > in > >>>> prod. But if more time is needed for the GA let's reiterate a bit. > >>>> > >>>> - > >>>> Denis > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:24 PM Николай Ижиков <nizhi...@apache.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> Also I agree with Alexey about introducing public IgniteMonitoring > >>>> facade > >>>>> > >>>>> This is not an issue with the API. > >>>>> Just the new feature that doesn’t affects API. > >>>>> Moreover, I create a ticket to fix it, already. > >>>>> > >>>>>> It's right. But if you add checking of statisticsEnabling property > >>> then > >>>>> test will fail. It's just not good tests. > >>>>> > >>>>> My changes doesn’t affect any `staticticsEnabled` property. > >>>>> I don’ understand your point here. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Redundant ReadOnlyMetricRegistry. > >>>>> > >>>>> It’s not redundant. > >>>>> It required for exporters and provide read only access to > >>> MetricRegistry > >>>>> existing in the node. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> MetricExporterSpi that requires ReadOnlyMetricRegistry. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Absence of newly created metrics in old MBeans that forces user use > >>>>>> exporter SPI while his code base uses old MBeans. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why this is issue? > >>>>> > >>>>>> Inconsistent MetricRegistry API. > >>>>> > >>>>> It’s consistent. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Metrics lookups from map instead of using direct reference > >>>>>> (performance problem). > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. We(You and I) did this choice together to simplify creation of the > >>> new > >>>>> metrics. > >>>>> 2. This is not public API issue. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Ignoring of statisticsEnabled flag. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don’t ignore this flag. > >>>>> It just doesn’t exists in new framework(because of scope). > >>>>> I don’t think it’s an issue. > >>>>> > >>>>>> JmxExporterSpi creates beans that doesn't satisfy best MBeans > >>>> practices. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please, clarify your statement. > >>>>> What is best MBeans practices you are talking about? > >>>>> > >>>>>> Not finished IGNITE-11927 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> How this can be API issue? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> 17 янв. 2020 г., в 20:52, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> > написал(а): > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> All issues Alexey mentioned in starting letter are fixed with my > PR > >>>>> [1]. > >>>>>>>> I don’t think other issues you mentioned are blocker for the > >>> release. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As I mentioned already IGNITE-11927 is part of IEP-35 and > >>>>>> implementation seriously affects API's. Also I agree with Alexey > >>> about > >>>>>> introducing public IgniteMonitoring facade. So thiss PR doesn't fix > >>>>>> all issues. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I talk about ignored existing functionality. > >>>>>>> There is no existing tests that was broken by this contribution. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's right. But if you add checking of statisticsEnabling property > >>>>>> then test will fail. It's just not good tests. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> If you know the issues with it, feel free to create a ticket I will > >>>> fix > >>>>> it ASAP. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I already fix it all in IGNITE-11927 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1. Moving IEP-35 API's to the internal package. > >>>>>>> We should move the product forward and shouldn't hide major > >>>>> contribution from the user just because your second guess «I don’t > like > >>>> the > >>>>> API I just reviewed and approved». > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We should move the product forward with with really finished > >>> features, > >>>>>> not pieces of features. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> So I am against this proposal. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is not argument. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> But, I’m ready to see your proposal for the API change and discuss > >>>> them. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We can prepare it together. But we can't block release. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Because IGNITE-11927 doesn't solve all problems > >>>>>>> What is *ALL* problems? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Redundant ReadOnlyMetricRegistry. > >>>>>> MetricExporterSpi that requires ReadOnlyMetricRegistry. > >>>>>> Absence of newly created metrics in old MBeans that forces user use > >>>>>> exporter SPI while his code base uses old MBeans. > >>>>>> Inconsistent MetricRegistry API. > >>>>>> Metrics lookups from map instead of using direct reference > >>>>>> (performance problem). > >>>>>> Ignoring of statisticsEnabled flag. > >>>>>> JmxExporterSpi creates beans that doesn't satisfy best MBeans > >>>> practices. > >>>>>> Not finished IGNITE-11927 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's enough I believe. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 7:28 PM Николай Ижиков <nizhi...@apache.org > > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Andrey. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> All issues Alexey mentioned in starting letter are fixed with my PR > >>>> [1]. > >>>>>>> I don’t think other issues you mentioned are blocker for the > >>> release. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I talk about ignored existing functionality. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There is no existing tests that was broken by this contribution. > >>>>>>> If you know the issues with it, feel free to create a ticket I will > >>>> fix > >>>>> it ASAP. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1. Moving IEP-35 API's to the internal package. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We should move the product forward and shouldn't hide major > >>>>> contribution from the user just because your second guess «I don’t > like > >>>> the > >>>>> API I just reviewed and approved». > >>>>>>> So I am against this proposal. > >>>>>>> But, I’m ready to see your proposal for the API change and discuss > >>>> them. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Because IGNITE-11927 doesn't solve all problems > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What is *ALL* problems? > >>>>>>> Seems, we never be able to solve *ALL* problems. > >>>>>>> But, we should move the product forward. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As for your steps [1-6]. > >>>>>>> I’m always following these steps during my contribution. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7269 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 17 янв. 2020 г., в 19:08, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> > >>> написал(а): > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The discussion is hot and can be endless. So in separate post I > >>> want > >>>>>>>> propose my solution. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1. Moving IEP-35 API's to the internal package. > >>>>>>>> 2. Create special feature branch B. > >>>>>>>> 3. In branch B will be merged IGNITE-11927 > >>>>>>>> 4. Because IGNITE-11927 doesn't solve all problems we should > >>> propose > >>>>>>>> solution and implement it in branch B. > >>>>>>>> 5. Testing, usability testing, fixing, etc iteratively. > >>>>>>>> 6. Merge it to master and in new release branch if needed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Independent step. There are some problem which should be fixed in > >>> 2.8 > >>>>>>>> before release otherwise we introduce problems with compatibility > >>>>>>>> which will haunt us till next major release. I'll create tickets. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 7:03 PM Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Because it is brand new API and it requires rewrite client > code. > >>>>>>>>>> We doesn’t break backward compatibility. > >>>>>>>>>> The message is - this interface would be remove in the next > major > >>>>> release. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We don't know anything about development processes our users. I > >>> can > >>>>>>>>> admit that process could require that deprecated methods/APIs are > >>>> not > >>>>>>>>> allowed for example. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ReadOnlyMetricRegistry > >>>>>>>>>>> Form user stand point it is very strange interface which don't > >>>> give > >>>>> me any information about it’s purpose and responsibilities. > >>>>>>>>>>> Seems, I should explain proposed changes [1] more clear: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I understand this. But I'm not Ignite user, I'm Ignite developer. > >>>> The > >>>>>>>>> key moment in my message *from user stand point*. From my point > of > >>>>>>>>> view it is very not intuitive solution and this interface is > >>>>>>>>> redundant. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Actually not. We have statisticsEnabled for caches for example. > >>>>> There are other entities with such flag. > >>>>>>>>>> They still works as expected. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Actually not. I fixed many such issues during IGNITE-11927 > >>>>> implementation. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Why do you decided do in such way? > >>>>>>>>>> Because of the scope. > >>>>>>>>>> The ability to disable/enable metrics is the matter of the other > >>>>> ticket. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I talk not about ability. I talk about ignored existing > >>>> functionality. > >>>>>>>>> So scope is not case here. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> But they should not be exported by MetricExporterSpi > >>>>> implementations. > >>>>>>>>>> Actually, it’s a responsibility of the exporter to decide. > >>>>>>>>>> JMX exporter can exports ObjectMetric while OpenCensus exporter > >>>>> can’t. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Actually list is not metric at all as I already told. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 5:26 PM Николай Ижиков < > >>> nizhi...@apache.org > >>>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Andrey. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Because it is brand new API and it requires rewrite client > code. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> We doesn’t break backward compatibility. > >>>>>>>>>> The message is - this interface would be remove in the next > major > >>>>> release. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ReadOnlyMetricRegistry > >>>>>>>>>>> Form user stand point it is very strange interface which don't > >>>> give > >>>>> me any information about it’s purpose and responsibilities. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Seems, I should explain proposed changes [1] more clear: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Each SPI would have a `ReadOnlyMetricManager` which provides > >>> access > >>>>> to collection of `ReadOnlyMetricRegistry` > >>>>>>>>>> which has a collection of `Metric`. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So we reflects two-level structure we have in the internal API > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> GridMetricManager -> Collection[MetricRegistry] -> > >>>> Collection[Metric] > >>>>>>>>>> ReadOnlyMetricManager -> Collection[ReadOnlyMetricRegistry] -> > >>>>> Collection[Metric] > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Actually not. We have statisticsEnabled for caches for example. > >>>>> There are other entities with such flag. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> They still works as expected. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Why do you decided do in such way? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Because of the scope. > >>>>>>>>>> The ability to disable/enable metrics is the matter of the other > >>>>> ticket. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> But they should not be exported by MetricExporterSpi > >>>>> implementations. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Actually, it’s a responsibility of the exporter to decide. > >>>>>>>>>> JMX exporter can exports ObjectMetric while OpenCensus exporter > >>>>> can’t. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7269/files#diff-0ae5657231fc4c1f650493b02190b81bR25 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 17 янв. 2020 г., в 16:57, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> > >>>>> написал(а): > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> If I’m not missing something, you were one of the active > >>>> reviewers > >>>>> of the Metric API. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. But if I'm not missing some thing you were major developer > >>> of > >>>>>>>>>>> Metric API :) Shit happens. And it happened. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The first, I agree with Alexey about deprecation of APIs that > >>>> are > >>>>> still supported and don't offer reasonable substitution. > >>>>>>>>>>>> It has - MetricExporterSPI. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> There is such concept - backward compatibility. I understand > >>> that > >>>>>>>>>>> deprecation of some interface doesn't break backward > >>> compatibility > >>>>> but > >>>>>>>>>>> it leads to question^ what should I use instead of this. And > >>>>>>>>>>> MetricExporterSpi is not answer for this question. Because it > is > >>>>> brand > >>>>>>>>>>> new API and it requires rewrite client code. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ReadOnlyMetricRegistry interface is redundant. > >>>>>>>>>>>> It’s an interface that exposes internal MetricRegistry to the > >>>>> exporters. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No it is not. It's completely artificial thing which allow > >>> iterate > >>>>> via > >>>>>>>>>>> all metric registries. GridMetricManager implements this > >>> interface > >>>>>>>>>>> while it is not metric registry. Form user stand point it is > >>> very > >>>>>>>>>>> strange interface which don't give me any information about > it's > >>>>>>>>>>> purpose and responsibilities. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Exporters expose metrics if they are disabled. > >>>>>>>>>>>> We don’t have an ability to disable metrics. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Actually not. We have statisticsEnabled for caches for example. > >>>>> There > >>>>>>>>>>> are other entities with such flag. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> And that done, intentionally. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Why do you decided do in such way? Why you ignore existing > >>>>>>>>>>> functionality? It affects user expectations and experience. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You are working on this issue, aren’t you? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes? I'm working. Unfortunately we are not synchronized in this > >>>>>>>>>>> context and I should redo all metrics related changes in order > >>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> merge it with my changes. Anyway, my change doesn't solve all > >>>>> problems > >>>>>>>>>>> (e.g. it doesn't introduce IgniteMonitoring facade). > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I can fix this issue, by myself. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately it will be just fix. In my solution it is > >>> redesign. > >>>>> Stop > >>>>>>>>>>> fixing issues, let's do things. It requires deeper changes. My > >>>>> changes > >>>>>>>>>>> blocks AI 2.8 release because it big enough. So it retargeted > on > >>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> next release. And it is one more reason for moving the changes > >>> to > >>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> internal packages. And it isn't good news for me because I will > >>> go > >>>>>>>>>>> throughout pan and tiers of merge. But it is right. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Metrics of type lists are not metric at all. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> They are created to deal with backward compatibility. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Metrics of type lists are not metric at all. > >>>>>>>>>>>> They are created to deal with backward compatibility. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I know. But they should not be exported by > >>> MetricExporterSpi > >>>>>>>>>>> implementations. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:37 PM Николай Ижиков < > >>>> nizhi...@apache.org> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey, thanks for your opinion and your ownest critisism. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t wait for your contribution. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> If I’m not missing something, you were one of the active > >>>> reviewers > >>>>> of the Metric API. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The first, I agree with Alexey about deprecation of APIs that > >>>> are > >>>>> still supported and don't offer reasonable substitution. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It has - MetricExporterSPI. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The second, from my point of view, we can't recommend > >>>>> MetricExporterSpi's because it are still not-production ready. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It’s ready. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The third, moving of MetricRegistry to the public API doesn't > >>>>> solve the problem because this interface exposes internal Metric > >>>> interface > >>>>> implementations. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Not, its’ not. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Please, see `org.apache.ignite.spi.metric.LongMetric` and > other > >>>>> public interface. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> API of MetricRegistry is inconsistent. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> MetricRegistry is the internal API. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to create ticket for an issues with it and I will > try > >>>> to > >>>>> fix it. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ReadOnlyMetricRegistry interface is redundant. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It’s an interface that exposes internal MetricRegistry to the > >>>>> exporters. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Exporters expose metrics if they are disabled. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> We don’t have an ability to disable metrics. > >>>>>>>>>>>> And that done, intentionally. > >>>>>>>>>>>> You are working on this issue, aren’t you? > >>>>>>>>>>>> I can fix this issue, by myself. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Metrics of type lists are not metric at all. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> They are created to deal with backward compatibility. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 17 янв. 2020 г., в 15:09, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> > >>>>> написал(а): > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The first, I agree with Alexey about deprecation of APIs that > >>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>> still supported and don't offer reasonable substitution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The second, from my point of view, we can't recommend > >>>>>>>>>>>>> MetricExporterSpi's because it are still not-production > ready. > >>>>> There > >>>>>>>>>>>>> are some issues with it and usage of ReadOnlyMetricRegistry > >>>>> interface > >>>>>>>>>>>>> just one of them. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The third, moving of MetricRegistry to the public API doesn't > >>>>> solve > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem because this interface exposes internal Metric > >>>>> interface > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implementations. So your PR is incomplete. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, API of MetricRegistry is inconsistent. E.g. > >>>>> register(name, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> supplier, desc) method returns registered metric for some > >>> types > >>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't for other. register(metric) method is inconsistent in > >>>>> sense of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> metric naming. ReadOnlyMetricRegistry interface is redundant. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> MetricExporterSpi should be revised because it absolutely not > >>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive because it requires ReadOnlyMetricRegistry and it's > >>>>> purpose > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is undefined. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> One more point. IEP-35 is still not fully implemented. Some > >>>>> things are > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not taken into account. Exporters expose metrics if they are > >>>>> disabled. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> JMX beans exposes values that don't confirm to best practices > >>>> [1]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Metrics of type lists are not metric at all. Ubiquitous > merics > >>>>> lookup > >>>>>>>>>>>>> from hash map instead of usage reference for getting metrics > >>>>> values > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (it is just performance issue). Also IGNITE-11927 is not > >>>>> implemented > >>>>>>>>>>>>> which also changes interfaces significantly. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's just admit that the implementation is immature and must > >>> be > >>>>> moved > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to the internal packages. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> And because we already merged partially implemented IEP to > the > >>>>> master > >>>>>>>>>>>>> branch we *must move all currently public APIs to the > internal > >>>>> API* > >>>>>>>>>>>>> while it will not be ready for publication. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> And the last but not least. What is happening indicates a > >>>> immature > >>>>>>>>>>>>> development process which must be revised. I don't want > >>> discuss > >>>>> it in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> this thread but we must not allow merge of change to the > >>> master > >>>>> branch > >>>>>>>>>>>>> before it will completed, that is we must use feature > branches > >>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>> full IEP not only for particular tickets. And also we should > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reformulate IEP process in order to avoid things like this. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/tech/best-practices-jsp-136021.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Николай Ижиков < > >>>>> nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alex. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, I may leverage your experience and create pure Java API. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ticket [1] created. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, personally, I don’t agree with you. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite has dozens of the API that theoretically have a usage > >>>>> scenario, but in real-world have 0 custom implementation and usages. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover, many APIs that were created with the intentions > you > >>>>> mentioned is abandoned now and confuses users. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can just see count of the tests we just mute on the TC. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, take a look at the fix regarding puck API > >>>> issue > >>>>> you mentioned in your first letter [2], [3] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12553 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7269 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12552 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 17 янв. 2020 г., в 12:12, Alexey Goncharuk < > >>>>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> написал(а): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think this is a wrong usage pattern? From the > top > >>>> of > >>>>> my head, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here is a few cases of direct metric API usage that I know > >>> are > >>>>> currently > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being used in production: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * A custom task execution scheduling service with load > >>>>> balancing based on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilization metrics readings from Java code > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Cleanup task trigger based on metrics readings > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * A custom health-check endpoint for an application with an > >>>>> embedded > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite node for Kubernetes/Spring Application/etc > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >
