Not to be a nag, but don't you think keeping JIRA-specific review comments on JIRA will be more helpful for later attempts to restore the conversation (if needed)? Cause now it's going to be two sources of the information: a JIRA an this thread whichi is only loosely connected to it.
Just a thought... Cos On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 05:36PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > Guys, > > The ticket has been implemented and will be merged soon. > > However, after reviewing it I have the following comments: > 1. Why we need String vararg parameter? I dont think that getting > ClusterGroup containing of nodes carrying different caches is a wide use > case. > 2. Current API does not allow me to filter only CLIENT_ONLY nodes. How > about adding vararg parameter to forCacheNodes - forCacheNodes(@Nullable > String cacheName, DistributionMode... modes) - if param is empty all nodes > are returned. > > --Yakov > > 2015-02-01 7:33 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <[email protected] > >: > > > Look good. Ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-158 > > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > How about having the following: > > > > > > - forDataNodes(cacheName) > > > - forClientNodes(cacheName) > > > - forCacheNodes(cacheName) > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > ClusterGroup provides forCache method that allows to get a group of > > nodes > > > > with the provided cache. But it includes CLIENT_ONLY nodes which are > > not > > > > needed in most cases (if you want to execute some computations with > > > cached > > > > data, you need only data nodes). > > > > > > > > I suggest to add forDataNodes(String cacheName, @Nullable String... > > > > cacheNames) method that will exclude client nodes. > > > > > > > > Alternatively we can add a boolean flag to existing forCache method, > > like > > > > this: > > > > > > > > forCache(boolean includeClients, String cacheName, @Nullable String... > > > > cacheNames) > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > >
