Since there are no comments, I'll keep it as is for now (count continuous query cursors the same way as other cursors)
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:29 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> wrote: > Igniters, > > Igor raised an interesting point in the PR: > > Should we limit the number of Continuous Queries together with other > queries > according to ClientConnectorConfiguration.maxOpenCursorsPerConn? > Or should we have a separate limit? > > Technically, Ignite returns a QueryCursor, but it is very different from > other cursors. > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:25 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> The pull request is ready for review. >> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 4:11 AM Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> I've reviewed changes made to IEP and they look good to me. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Igor >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 1:03 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Alex, >>> > >>> > You are correct, OP_RESOURCE_CLOSE is enough. >>> > Removed the extra op. >>> > >>> > > If client closes CQ it doesn't want to receive any new events. Why >>> can't >>> > we >>> > > just ignore events for this CQ after that moment? >>> > I don't think that our protocol should involve ignoring messages. >>> > If the client stops the query, the server should guarantee that no >>> events >>> > will be sent >>> > to the client after the OP_RESOURCE_CLOSE response. >>> > >>> > I had some concerns about this guarantee, but after reviewing >>> GridNioServer >>> > logic, >>> > the current implementation with OP_RESOURCE_CLOSE seems to be fine. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:09 AM Alex Plehanov < >>> plehanov.a...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > Pavel, >>> > > >>> > > > OP_QUERY_CONTINUOUS_END_NOTIFICATION is another client -> server >>> > message >>> > > I think you mean "server -> client" here. >>> > > >>> > > But I still didn't get why do we need it. >>> > > I've briefly looked to the POC implementation and, as far as I >>> > understand, >>> > > OP_QUERY_CONTINUOUS_END_NOTIFICATION can be sent only when >>> > > OP_RESOURCE_CLOSE is received by server (client closes the CQ >>> > explicitly). >>> > > If client closes CQ it doesn't want to receive any new events. Why >>> can't >>> > we >>> > > just ignore events for this CQ after that moment? >>> > > Also, in current implementation OP_QUERY_CONTINUOUS_END_NOTIFICATION >>> is >>> > > sent before OP_RESOURCE_CLOSE response, so OP_RESOURCE_CLOSE >>> response can >>> > > be used the same way as OP_QUERY_CONTINUOUS_END_NOTIFICATION. >>> > > >>> > > Such notification (or something more generalized like >>> OP_RESOURCE_CLOSED) >>> > > can be helpful if CQ is closed by someone else (for example if >>> > > administrator call QueryMXBean.cancelContinuous), but AFAIK now we >>> don't >>> > > have callbacks for this action on user side. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > ср, 15 июл. 2020 г. в 01:26, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: >>> > > >>> > > > Igniters, >>> > > > >>> > > > I've made an important change to the IEP (and the POC): >>> > > > OP_QUERY_CONTINUOUS_END_NOTIFICATION is another client -> server >>> > message >>> > > > that notifies the client that the query has stopped and no more >>> events >>> > > > should be expected. >>> > > > >>> > > > This is important because client can't immediately stop listening >>> > > > for OP_QUERY_CONTINUOUS_EVENT_NOTIFICATION >>> > > > after sending OP_RESOURCE_CLOSE - some more events can be present >>> in >>> > one >>> > > of >>> > > > the buffers/queues of the server and/or the OS. >>> > > > >>> > > > Let me know if this makes sense. >>> > > > >>> > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 3:25 PM Pavel Tupitsyn < >>> ptupit...@apache.org> >>> > > > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > I've removed Initial Query from the POC and IEP (left a note >>> there >>> > > about >>> > > > > the decision). >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Since there are no other comments and concerns, I'll move on >>> with the >>> > > > > final implementation. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 4:14 PM Pavel Tupitsyn < >>> ptupit...@apache.org >>> > > >>> > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > >> Igor, Alex, >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> I was aware of the duplicates issue with the initial query, but >>> I >>> > did >>> > > > not >>> > > > >> give it a second thought. >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> Now I see that Vladimir was right - Initial query seems to be >>> > > pointless, >>> > > > >> since users can >>> > > > >> achieve the same by simply invoking the regular query. >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> I will remove Initial Query from the IEP and POC next week if >>> there >>> > > are >>> > > > >> no objections by then. >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 3:58 PM Alex Plehanov < >>> > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com> >>> > > > >> wrote: >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >>> Igor, Pavel, >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> Here is discussion about removal: [1] >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> [1] : >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ContinuousQueryWithTransformer-implementation-questions-2-td21418i20.html#a22041 >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> пт, 10 июл. 2020 г. в 17:44, Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org>: >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> > Can not find proposal to remove them, so maybe it was not on >>> > > devlist, >>> > > > >>> > but here is discussion about the problem: [1] >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > [1] - >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Continuous-queries-and-duplicates-td39444.html >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > Best Regards, >>> > > > >>> > Igor >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 3:27 PM Pavel Tupitsyn < >>> > > ptupit...@apache.org >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > > > What's about "stop" message? How can user unsubscribe >>> from >>> > > > >>> receiving >>> > > > >>> > > notifications? >>> > > > >>> > > OP_RESOURCE_CLOSE is used for that. I've updated the IEP >>> in an >>> > > > >>> attempt to >>> > > > >>> > > make this cleaner. >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > I've seen discussions on removing initial query from >>> > > continuous >>> > > > >>> > queries >>> > > > >>> > > Interesting, I'm not aware of this. Can you please link >>> those >>> > > > >>> > discussions? >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 2:04 PM Igor Sapego < >>> > isap...@apache.org> >>> > > > >>> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Pavel, >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > What's about "stop" message? How can user unsubscribe >>> from >>> > > > >>> receiving >>> > > > >>> > > > notifications? >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Also, I believe I've seen discussions on removing initial >>> > query >>> > > > >>> from >>> > > > >>> > > > continuous queries, >>> > > > >>> > > > as there are not any guarantees about getting consistent >>> > > results >>> > > > >>> with >>> > > > >>> > > them. >>> > > > >>> > > > Should >>> > > > >>> > > > we avoid adding them in thin protocol maybe? It would >>> also >>> > > > simplify >>> > > > >>> > > > protocol a lot. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Best Regards, >>> > > > >>> > > > Igor >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:39 PM Pavel Tupitsyn < >>> > > > >>> ptupit...@apache.org> >>> > > > >>> > > > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > Igniters, >>> > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > Let's discuss Thin Client Continuous Queries, >>> > > > >>> > > > > I've prepared an IEP [1] and a PoC [2]. >>> > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > [1] >>> > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-50%3A+Thin+Client+Continuous+Queries >>> > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7966 >>> > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>
