Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Denis, thank you! I’m glad to participate in development of the project.

Unfortunately, we don’t have clear design of the services hot redeployment
yet.

I’m going to start discussions about Service Grid roadmap and services hot
redevelopment design in separate threads within a couple of weeks.


пт, 18 янв. 2019 г. в 0:06, Denis Magda :

> Vyacheslav,
>
> Let me speak for the community and Ignite users and thank you for achieving
> this milestone! Seems that the foundation for much bigger and impactful
> improvements is ready. Tremendous job.
>
> Are you going to start working on the services hot redeployment next?
>
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:36 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > The wiki's article [1] has been updated according to the merged solution
> > [2].
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 1:10 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > to have an opportunity to test both new and old service grid
> > > implementations, we added new config-plans on TC:
> > > - Service Grid [1] - runs tests in new (default) mode
> > > - Service Grid (legacy mode) [2] - runs tests in old (legacy) mode
> > >
> > > Both plans contain the following test-suites:
> > > - IgniteServiceGridTestSuite (newly added suite)
> > > - IgniteServiceConfigVariationsFullApiTestSuite (was moved from "Basic
> > 2")
> > >
> > > Also, the plans have been included in RunAll.
> > >
> > > [1]
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ServiceGrid
> > > [2]
> >
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ServiceGridLegacyMode
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 6:24 AM Nikolay Izhikov 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > >
> > > > I've merged Service Grid Redesign - Phase 1 to the master.
> > > > Vyacheslav, great contribution!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for all Ignite veterans both for the code and design review.
> > > >
> > > > В Пн, 24/12/2018 в 20:50 +0300, Nikolay Izhikov пишет:
> > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please, let us know, if someone want to do additional review of
> this
> > PR.
> > > > >
> > > > > В Пн, 24/12/2018 в 20:23 +0300, Vyacheslav Daradur пишет:
> > > > > > Igniters, especially future reviewers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Discovery listener registered by 'IgniteServiceProcessor' become
> > > > > > implemented 'HighPriorityListener', seems it's best lock-free
> > > > > > solutions discussed during the review. This change is covered by
> > > > > > `ServiceDeploymentDiscoveryListenerNotificationOrderTest` which
> > should
> > > > > > protect us if the order of listeners will be changed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's about the problem of custom messages which are nullified by
> > PME
> > > > > > [1] and are listened by service deployment to manage the
> lifecycle
> > of
> > > > > > affinity services. This guarantees that service deployment
> > discovery
> > > > > > listener will be notified earlier than PME's discovery listener
> and
> > > > > > will be able to capture custom messages which may be nullified in
> > PME
> > > > > > process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looks like we do not have any controversial questions now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Danger-change-of-DiscoveryCustomEvent-in-GridDhtPartitionsExchangeFuture-onDone-td35946.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:23 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stanislav, thank you for the notes, most of them have been
> > resolved. I
> > > > > > > answered on GitHub.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM St

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Magda]

Vyacheslav,

Let me speak for the community and Ignite users and thank you for achieving
this milestone! Seems that the foundation for much bigger and impactful
improvements is ready. Tremendous job.

Are you going to start working on the services hot redeployment next?


-
Denis


On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:36 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> The wiki's article [1] has been updated according to the merged solution
> [2].
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 1:10 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> > to have an opportunity to test both new and old service grid
> > implementations, we added new config-plans on TC:
> > - Service Grid [1] - runs tests in new (default) mode
> > - Service Grid (legacy mode) [2] - runs tests in old (legacy) mode
> >
> > Both plans contain the following test-suites:
> > - IgniteServiceGridTestSuite (newly added suite)
> > - IgniteServiceConfigVariationsFullApiTestSuite (was moved from "Basic
> 2")
> >
> > Also, the plans have been included in RunAll.
> >
> > [1]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ServiceGrid
> > [2]
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ServiceGridLegacyMode
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 6:24 AM Nikolay Izhikov 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, Igniters.
> > >
> > > I've merged Service Grid Redesign - Phase 1 to the master.
> > > Vyacheslav, great contribution!
> > >
> > > Thanks for all Ignite veterans both for the code and design review.
> > >
> > > В Пн, 24/12/2018 в 20:50 +0300, Nikolay Izhikov пишет:
> > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > >
> > > > Please, let us know, if someone want to do additional review of this
> PR.
> > > >
> > > > В Пн, 24/12/2018 в 20:23 +0300, Vyacheslav Daradur пишет:
> > > > > Igniters, especially future reviewers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Discovery listener registered by 'IgniteServiceProcessor' become
> > > > > implemented 'HighPriorityListener', seems it's best lock-free
> > > > > solutions discussed during the review. This change is covered by
> > > > > `ServiceDeploymentDiscoveryListenerNotificationOrderTest` which
> should
> > > > > protect us if the order of listeners will be changed.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's about the problem of custom messages which are nullified by
> PME
> > > > > [1] and are listened by service deployment to manage the lifecycle
> of
> > > > > affinity services. This guarantees that service deployment
> discovery
> > > > > listener will be notified earlier than PME's discovery listener and
> > > > > will be able to capture custom messages which may be nullified in
> PME
> > > > > process.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looks like we do not have any controversial questions now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Danger-change-of-DiscoveryCustomEvent-in-GridDhtPartitionsExchangeFuture-onDone-td35946.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:23 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stanislav, thank you for the notes, most of them have been
> resolved. I
> > > > > > answered on GitHub.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM Stanislav Lukyanov
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I’ve done a quick superficial review. Didn’t look at the
> tests, didn’t dive into the design, etc, just the code.
> > > > > > > I’ve left some comments – almost all are about minor issues,
> grammar and code style.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Vyacheslav Daradur
> > > > > > > Sent: 21 декабря 2018 г. 14:58
> > > > > > > To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Service grid redesign
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

The wiki's article [1] has been updated according to the merged solution [2].

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 1:10 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
>
> Igniters,
>
> to have an opportunity to test both new and old service grid
> implementations, we added new config-plans on TC:
> - Service Grid [1] - runs tests in new (default) mode
> - Service Grid (legacy mode) [2] - runs tests in old (legacy) mode
>
> Both plans contain the following test-suites:
> - IgniteServiceGridTestSuite (newly added suite)
> - IgniteServiceConfigVariationsFullApiTestSuite (was moved from "Basic 2")
>
> Also, the plans have been included in RunAll.
>
> [1] 
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ServiceGrid
> [2] 
> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ServiceGridLegacyMode
>
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 6:24 AM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Igniters.
> >
> > I've merged Service Grid Redesign - Phase 1 to the master.
> > Vyacheslav, great contribution!
> >
> > Thanks for all Ignite veterans both for the code and design review.
> >
> > В Пн, 24/12/2018 в 20:50 +0300, Nikolay Izhikov пишет:
> > > Hello, Igniters.
> > >
> > > Please, let us know, if someone want to do additional review of this PR.
> > >
> > > В Пн, 24/12/2018 в 20:23 +0300, Vyacheslav Daradur пишет:
> > > > Igniters, especially future reviewers,
> > > >
> > > > Discovery listener registered by 'IgniteServiceProcessor' become
> > > > implemented 'HighPriorityListener', seems it's best lock-free
> > > > solutions discussed during the review. This change is covered by
> > > > `ServiceDeploymentDiscoveryListenerNotificationOrderTest` which should
> > > > protect us if the order of listeners will be changed.
> > > >
> > > > It's about the problem of custom messages which are nullified by PME
> > > > [1] and are listened by service deployment to manage the lifecycle of
> > > > affinity services. This guarantees that service deployment discovery
> > > > listener will be notified earlier than PME's discovery listener and
> > > > will be able to capture custom messages which may be nullified in PME
> > > > process.
> > > >
> > > > Looks like we do not have any controversial questions now.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > [1] 
> > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Danger-change-of-DiscoveryCustomEvent-in-GridDhtPartitionsExchangeFuture-onDone-td35946.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:23 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Stanislav, thank you for the notes, most of them have been resolved. I
> > > > > answered on GitHub.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM Stanislav Lukyanov
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I’ve done a quick superficial review. Didn’t look at the tests, 
> > > > > > didn’t dive into the design, etc, just the code.
> > > > > > I’ve left some comments – almost all are about minor issues, 
> > > > > > grammar and code style.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Vyacheslav Daradur
> > > > > > Sent: 21 декабря 2018 г. 14:58
> > > > > > To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Service grid redesign
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please, let us know if someone is going to do an additional review?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We should know can we merge the PR since it has been approved by
> > > > > > Nikolay Izhikov and Denis Mekhanikov or we should wait for other
> > > > > > community members.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:52 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think I found names which should satisfy me and Denis, and 
> > > > > > > possibly Nikolay )
> > > > > > &

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Igniters,

to have an opportunity to test both new and old service grid
implementations, we added new config-plans on TC:
- Service Grid [1] - runs tests in new (default) mode
- Service Grid (legacy mode) [2] - runs tests in old (legacy) mode

Both plans contain the following test-suites:
- IgniteServiceGridTestSuite (newly added suite)
- IgniteServiceConfigVariationsFullApiTestSuite (was moved from "Basic 2")

Also, the plans have been included in RunAll.

[1] 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ServiceGrid
[2] 
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ServiceGridLegacyMode

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 6:24 AM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
>
> Hello, Igniters.
>
> I've merged Service Grid Redesign - Phase 1 to the master.
> Vyacheslav, great contribution!
>
> Thanks for all Ignite veterans both for the code and design review.
>
> В Пн, 24/12/2018 в 20:50 +0300, Nikolay Izhikov пишет:
> > Hello, Igniters.
> >
> > Please, let us know, if someone want to do additional review of this PR.
> >
> > В Пн, 24/12/2018 в 20:23 +0300, Vyacheslav Daradur пишет:
> > > Igniters, especially future reviewers,
> > >
> > > Discovery listener registered by 'IgniteServiceProcessor' become
> > > implemented 'HighPriorityListener', seems it's best lock-free
> > > solutions discussed during the review. This change is covered by
> > > `ServiceDeploymentDiscoveryListenerNotificationOrderTest` which should
> > > protect us if the order of listeners will be changed.
> > >
> > > It's about the problem of custom messages which are nullified by PME
> > > [1] and are listened by service deployment to manage the lifecycle of
> > > affinity services. This guarantees that service deployment discovery
> > > listener will be notified earlier than PME's discovery listener and
> > > will be able to capture custom messages which may be nullified in PME
> > > process.
> > >
> > > Looks like we do not have any controversial questions now.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > [1] 
> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Danger-change-of-DiscoveryCustomEvent-in-GridDhtPartitionsExchangeFuture-onDone-td35946.html
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:23 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stanislav, thank you for the notes, most of them have been resolved. I
> > > > answered on GitHub.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM Stanislav Lukyanov
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I’ve done a quick superficial review. Didn’t look at the tests, 
> > > > > didn’t dive into the design, etc, just the code.
> > > > > I’ve left some comments – almost all are about minor issues, grammar 
> > > > > and code style.
> > > > >
> > > > > Stan
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Vyacheslav Daradur
> > > > > Sent: 21 декабря 2018 г. 14:58
> > > > > To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: Service grid redesign
> > > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > > Please, let us know if someone is going to do an additional review?
> > > > >
> > > > > We should know can we merge the PR since it has been approved by
> > > > > Nikolay Izhikov and Denis Mekhanikov or we should wait for other
> > > > > community members.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:52 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think I found names which should satisfy me and Denis, and 
> > > > > > possibly Nikolay )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the following names (Actual name <- Previously used):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - ServiceDeploymentManager <- ServicesDeploymentManager
> > > > > > - ServiceDeploymentActions <- ServicesDeploymentActions
> > > > > > - ServiceDeploymentProcessId <- ServicesDeploymentProcessId
> > > > > > - ServiceDeploymentTask <- ServicesDeploymentTask
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - ServiceDeploymentRequest <- ServiceDeploymentChange
> > > > > > - ServiceUndeploymentRequest <- ServiceUndeploymentChange
> > > > > > - ServiceChangeAbstractRequest <- Serv

Re: Service grid redesign

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Hello, Igniters.

I've merged Service Grid Redesign - Phase 1 to the master.
Vyacheslav, great contribution!

Thanks for all Ignite veterans both for the code and design review.

В Пн, 24/12/2018 в 20:50 +0300, Nikolay Izhikov пишет:
> Hello, Igniters.
> 
> Please, let us know, if someone want to do additional review of this PR.
> 
> В Пн, 24/12/2018 в 20:23 +0300, Vyacheslav Daradur пишет:
> > Igniters, especially future reviewers,
> > 
> > Discovery listener registered by 'IgniteServiceProcessor' become
> > implemented 'HighPriorityListener', seems it's best lock-free
> > solutions discussed during the review. This change is covered by
> > `ServiceDeploymentDiscoveryListenerNotificationOrderTest` which should
> > protect us if the order of listeners will be changed.
> > 
> > It's about the problem of custom messages which are nullified by PME
> > [1] and are listened by service deployment to manage the lifecycle of
> > affinity services. This guarantees that service deployment discovery
> > listener will be notified earlier than PME's discovery listener and
> > will be able to capture custom messages which may be nullified in PME
> > process.
> > 
> > Looks like we do not have any controversial questions now.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > [1] 
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Danger-change-of-DiscoveryCustomEvent-in-GridDhtPartitionsExchangeFuture-onDone-td35946.html
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:23 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Stanislav, thank you for the notes, most of them have been resolved. I
> > > answered on GitHub.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM Stanislav Lukyanov
> > >  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I’ve done a quick superficial review. Didn’t look at the tests, didn’t 
> > > > dive into the design, etc, just the code.
> > > > I’ve left some comments – almost all are about minor issues, grammar 
> > > > and code style.
> > > > 
> > > > Stan
> > > > 
> > > > From: Vyacheslav Daradur
> > > > Sent: 21 декабря 2018 г. 14:58
> > > > To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Service grid redesign
> > > > 
> > > > Igniters,
> > > > 
> > > > Please, let us know if someone is going to do an additional review?
> > > > 
> > > > We should know can we merge the PR since it has been approved by
> > > > Nikolay Izhikov and Denis Mekhanikov or we should wait for other
> > > > community members.
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:52 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think I found names which should satisfy me and Denis, and possibly 
> > > > > Nikolay )
> > > > > 
> > > > > See the following names (Actual name <- Previously used):
> > > > > 
> > > > > - ServiceDeploymentManager <- ServicesDeploymentManager
> > > > > - ServiceDeploymentActions <- ServicesDeploymentActions
> > > > > - ServiceDeploymentProcessId <- ServicesDeploymentProcessId
> > > > > - ServiceDeploymentTask <- ServicesDeploymentTask
> > > > > 
> > > > > - ServiceDeploymentRequest <- ServiceDeploymentChange
> > > > > - ServiceUndeploymentRequest <- ServiceUndeploymentChange
> > > > > - ServiceChangeAbstractRequest <- ServiceAbstractChange
> > > > > 
> > > > > - ServiceSingleNodeDeploymentResult <- ServiceSingleDeploymentsResults
> > > > > - ServiceSingleNodeDeploymentResultBatch <- 
> > > > > ServicesSingleDeploymentsMessage
> > > > > 
> > > > > - ServiceClusterDeploymentResult <- ServiceFullDeploymentsResults
> > > > > - ServiceClusterDeploymentResultBatch <- 
> > > > > ServicesFullDeploymentsMessage
> > > > > 
> > > > > - ServiceProcessorCommonDiscoveryData <- ServicesCommonDiscoveryData
> > > > > - ServiceProcessorJoinNodeDiscoveryData <- 
> > > > > ServicesJoinNodeDiscoveryData
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also, I had a short talk with Alexey Goncharuk about the problem of
> > > > > nullified custom messages. I changed the implementation to a lock-free
> > > > > solution which allows us to nullify messages depend on an using
> > > > > c

Re: Service grid redesign

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Hello, Igniters.

Please, let us know, if someone want to do additional review of this PR.

В Пн, 24/12/2018 в 20:23 +0300, Vyacheslav Daradur пишет:
> Igniters, especially future reviewers,
> 
> Discovery listener registered by 'IgniteServiceProcessor' become
> implemented 'HighPriorityListener', seems it's best lock-free
> solutions discussed during the review. This change is covered by
> `ServiceDeploymentDiscoveryListenerNotificationOrderTest` which should
> protect us if the order of listeners will be changed.
> 
> It's about the problem of custom messages which are nullified by PME
> [1] and are listened by service deployment to manage the lifecycle of
> affinity services. This guarantees that service deployment discovery
> listener will be notified earlier than PME's discovery listener and
> will be able to capture custom messages which may be nullified in PME
> process.
> 
> Looks like we do not have any controversial questions now.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> [1] 
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Danger-change-of-DiscoveryCustomEvent-in-GridDhtPartitionsExchangeFuture-onDone-td35946.html
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:23 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  
> wrote:
> > 
> > Stanislav, thank you for the notes, most of them have been resolved. I
> > answered on GitHub.
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM Stanislav Lukyanov
> >  wrote:
> > > 
> > > I’ve done a quick superficial review. Didn’t look at the tests, didn’t 
> > > dive into the design, etc, just the code.
> > > I’ve left some comments – almost all are about minor issues, grammar and 
> > > code style.
> > > 
> > > Stan
> > > 
> > > From: Vyacheslav Daradur
> > > Sent: 21 декабря 2018 г. 14:58
> > > To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Service grid redesign
> > > 
> > > Igniters,
> > > 
> > > Please, let us know if someone is going to do an additional review?
> > > 
> > > We should know can we merge the PR since it has been approved by
> > > Nikolay Izhikov and Denis Mekhanikov or we should wait for other
> > > community members.
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:52 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I think I found names which should satisfy me and Denis, and possibly 
> > > > Nikolay )
> > > > 
> > > > See the following names (Actual name <- Previously used):
> > > > 
> > > > - ServiceDeploymentManager <- ServicesDeploymentManager
> > > > - ServiceDeploymentActions <- ServicesDeploymentActions
> > > > - ServiceDeploymentProcessId <- ServicesDeploymentProcessId
> > > > - ServiceDeploymentTask <- ServicesDeploymentTask
> > > > 
> > > > - ServiceDeploymentRequest <- ServiceDeploymentChange
> > > > - ServiceUndeploymentRequest <- ServiceUndeploymentChange
> > > > - ServiceChangeAbstractRequest <- ServiceAbstractChange
> > > > 
> > > > - ServiceSingleNodeDeploymentResult <- ServiceSingleDeploymentsResults
> > > > - ServiceSingleNodeDeploymentResultBatch <- 
> > > > ServicesSingleDeploymentsMessage
> > > > 
> > > > - ServiceClusterDeploymentResult <- ServiceFullDeploymentsResults
> > > > - ServiceClusterDeploymentResultBatch <- ServicesFullDeploymentsMessage
> > > > 
> > > > - ServiceProcessorCommonDiscoveryData <- ServicesCommonDiscoveryData
> > > > - ServiceProcessorJoinNodeDiscoveryData <- ServicesJoinNodeDiscoveryData
> > > > 
> > > > Also, I had a short talk with Alexey Goncharuk about the problem of
> > > > nullified custom messages. I changed the implementation to a lock-free
> > > > solution which allows us to nullify messages depend on an using
> > > > counter.
> > > > 
> > > > In comparison with high priority listener, this allows us to not copy
> > > > custom discovery event in service deployment manager and work with the
> > > > original object.
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:57 AM Nikolay Izhikov  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Denis, great news!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Alexey, Vova, Yakov, do you want to take a look at this PR?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > В Ср, 19/12/2018 в 18:47 +0300, Denis Mekhanikov пишет:
> > > > > > Guys,
> &g

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Igniters, especially future reviewers,

Discovery listener registered by 'IgniteServiceProcessor' become
implemented 'HighPriorityListener', seems it's best lock-free
solutions discussed during the review. This change is covered by
`ServiceDeploymentDiscoveryListenerNotificationOrderTest` which should
protect us if the order of listeners will be changed.

It's about the problem of custom messages which are nullified by PME
[1] and are listened by service deployment to manage the lifecycle of
affinity services. This guarantees that service deployment discovery
listener will be notified earlier than PME's discovery listener and
will be able to capture custom messages which may be nullified in PME
process.

Looks like we do not have any controversial questions now.

Thanks!

[1] 
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Danger-change-of-DiscoveryCustomEvent-in-GridDhtPartitionsExchangeFuture-onDone-td35946.html


On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:23 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
>
> Stanislav, thank you for the notes, most of them have been resolved. I
> answered on GitHub.
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM Stanislav Lukyanov
>  wrote:
> >
> > I’ve done a quick superficial review. Didn’t look at the tests, didn’t dive 
> > into the design, etc, just the code.
> > I’ve left some comments – almost all are about minor issues, grammar and 
> > code style.
> >
> > Stan
> >
> > From: Vyacheslav Daradur
> > Sent: 21 декабря 2018 г. 14:58
> > To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Service grid redesign
> >
> > Igniters,
> >
> > Please, let us know if someone is going to do an additional review?
> >
> > We should know can we merge the PR since it has been approved by
> > Nikolay Izhikov and Denis Mekhanikov or we should wait for other
> > community members.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:52 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think I found names which should satisfy me and Denis, and possibly 
> > > Nikolay )
> > >
> > > See the following names (Actual name <- Previously used):
> > >
> > > - ServiceDeploymentManager <- ServicesDeploymentManager
> > > - ServiceDeploymentActions <- ServicesDeploymentActions
> > > - ServiceDeploymentProcessId <- ServicesDeploymentProcessId
> > > - ServiceDeploymentTask <- ServicesDeploymentTask
> > >
> > > - ServiceDeploymentRequest <- ServiceDeploymentChange
> > > - ServiceUndeploymentRequest <- ServiceUndeploymentChange
> > > - ServiceChangeAbstractRequest <- ServiceAbstractChange
> > >
> > > - ServiceSingleNodeDeploymentResult <- ServiceSingleDeploymentsResults
> > > - ServiceSingleNodeDeploymentResultBatch <- 
> > > ServicesSingleDeploymentsMessage
> > >
> > > - ServiceClusterDeploymentResult <- ServiceFullDeploymentsResults
> > > - ServiceClusterDeploymentResultBatch <- ServicesFullDeploymentsMessage
> > >
> > > - ServiceProcessorCommonDiscoveryData <- ServicesCommonDiscoveryData
> > > - ServiceProcessorJoinNodeDiscoveryData <- ServicesJoinNodeDiscoveryData
> > >
> > > Also, I had a short talk with Alexey Goncharuk about the problem of
> > > nullified custom messages. I changed the implementation to a lock-free
> > > solution which allows us to nullify messages depend on an using
> > > counter.
> > >
> > > In comparison with high priority listener, this allows us to not copy
> > > custom discovery event in service deployment manager and work with the
> > > original object.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:57 AM Nikolay Izhikov  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Denis, great news!
> > > >
> > > > Alexey, Vova, Yakov, do you want to take a look at this PR?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > В Ср, 19/12/2018 в 18:47 +0300, Denis Mekhanikov пишет:
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I finished my code review. The pool request looks good to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anybody else want to look at the changes?
> > > > > There are a few points, that we didn't meet an agreement on,
> > > > > though they don't affect the behaviour in any way:
> > > > >
> > > > >- *Class naming. * See the discussion above.
> > > > >- *Unnecessary task object cleaning. *
> > > > >IMO, ServicesDeploymentTask#clear() method doesn't do anything 
> > > > > useful,
> > > > &g

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Stanislav, thank you for the notes, most of them have been resolved. I
answered on GitHub.


On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:34 PM Stanislav Lukyanov
 wrote:
>
> I’ve done a quick superficial review. Didn’t look at the tests, didn’t dive 
> into the design, etc, just the code.
> I’ve left some comments – almost all are about minor issues, grammar and code 
> style.
>
> Stan
>
> From: Vyacheslav Daradur
> Sent: 21 декабря 2018 г. 14:58
> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Service grid redesign
>
> Igniters,
>
> Please, let us know if someone is going to do an additional review?
>
> We should know can we merge the PR since it has been approved by
> Nikolay Izhikov and Denis Mekhanikov or we should wait for other
> community members.
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:52 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  
> wrote:
> >
> > I think I found names which should satisfy me and Denis, and possibly 
> > Nikolay )
> >
> > See the following names (Actual name <- Previously used):
> >
> > - ServiceDeploymentManager <- ServicesDeploymentManager
> > - ServiceDeploymentActions <- ServicesDeploymentActions
> > - ServiceDeploymentProcessId <- ServicesDeploymentProcessId
> > - ServiceDeploymentTask <- ServicesDeploymentTask
> >
> > - ServiceDeploymentRequest <- ServiceDeploymentChange
> > - ServiceUndeploymentRequest <- ServiceUndeploymentChange
> > - ServiceChangeAbstractRequest <- ServiceAbstractChange
> >
> > - ServiceSingleNodeDeploymentResult <- ServiceSingleDeploymentsResults
> > - ServiceSingleNodeDeploymentResultBatch <- ServicesSingleDeploymentsMessage
> >
> > - ServiceClusterDeploymentResult <- ServiceFullDeploymentsResults
> > - ServiceClusterDeploymentResultBatch <- ServicesFullDeploymentsMessage
> >
> > - ServiceProcessorCommonDiscoveryData <- ServicesCommonDiscoveryData
> > - ServiceProcessorJoinNodeDiscoveryData <- ServicesJoinNodeDiscoveryData
> >
> > Also, I had a short talk with Alexey Goncharuk about the problem of
> > nullified custom messages. I changed the implementation to a lock-free
> > solution which allows us to nullify messages depend on an using
> > counter.
> >
> > In comparison with high priority listener, this allows us to not copy
> > custom discovery event in service deployment manager and work with the
> > original object.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:57 AM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
> > >
> > > Denis, great news!
> > >
> > > Alexey, Vova, Yakov, do you want to take a look at this PR?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > В Ср, 19/12/2018 в 18:47 +0300, Denis Mekhanikov пишет:
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I finished my code review. The pool request looks good to me.
> > > >
> > > > Does anybody else want to look at the changes?
> > > > There are a few points, that we didn't meet an agreement on,
> > > > though they don't affect the behaviour in any way:
> > > >
> > > >- *Class naming. * See the discussion above.
> > > >- *Unnecessary task object cleaning. *
> > > >IMO, ServicesDeploymentTask#clear() method doesn't do anything 
> > > > useful,
> > > >and it should be removed.
> > > >By the moment, when this method is called, the task object is removed
> > > >from all collections anyway, so it's ready for garbage collection.
> > > >Removing data from it doesn't help anybody.
> > > >-
> > > > *Unnecessary tests. *ServiceInfoSelfTest and
> > > >ServicesDeploymentProcessIdSelfTest look excessive to me.
> > > >I don't see any point in testing an interface implementation, that 
> > > > only
> > > >saves some objects and returns them from certain methods.
> > > >- Interface for events with servicesDeploymentActions() method.
> > > >Take a look at the discussion:
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434/files/30e69d9a53ce6ea16c4e9d15354e94360caa719d#r239442342
> > > >
> > > > Also solution with *DiscoveryCustomEvent#nullifyingCustomMsgLock* looks
> > > > clumsy to me.
> > > > The problem with nullifying of *DiscoveryCustomEvent#customMsg* field 
> > > > can
> > > > be solved
> > > > by making *ServiceDiscoveryListener* a high priority listener.
> > > >
> > > > Or *DiscoveryCustomEvent#customMessage()* method could be marked
> > > > synchro

RE: Service grid redesign

[Stanislav Lukyanov]

I’ve done a quick superficial review. Didn’t look at the tests, didn’t dive 
into the design, etc, just the code.
I’ve left some comments – almost all are about minor issues, grammar and code 
style.

Stan 

From: Vyacheslav Daradur
Sent: 21 декабря 2018 г. 14:58
To: dev@ignite.apache.org
Subject: Re: Service grid redesign

Igniters,

Please, let us know if someone is going to do an additional review?

We should know can we merge the PR since it has been approved by
Nikolay Izhikov and Denis Mekhanikov or we should wait for other
community members.

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:52 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
>
> I think I found names which should satisfy me and Denis, and possibly Nikolay 
> )
>
> See the following names (Actual name <- Previously used):
>
> - ServiceDeploymentManager <- ServicesDeploymentManager
> - ServiceDeploymentActions <- ServicesDeploymentActions
> - ServiceDeploymentProcessId <- ServicesDeploymentProcessId
> - ServiceDeploymentTask <- ServicesDeploymentTask
>
> - ServiceDeploymentRequest <- ServiceDeploymentChange
> - ServiceUndeploymentRequest <- ServiceUndeploymentChange
> - ServiceChangeAbstractRequest <- ServiceAbstractChange
>
> - ServiceSingleNodeDeploymentResult <- ServiceSingleDeploymentsResults
> - ServiceSingleNodeDeploymentResultBatch <- ServicesSingleDeploymentsMessage
>
> - ServiceClusterDeploymentResult <- ServiceFullDeploymentsResults
> - ServiceClusterDeploymentResultBatch <- ServicesFullDeploymentsMessage
>
> - ServiceProcessorCommonDiscoveryData <- ServicesCommonDiscoveryData
> - ServiceProcessorJoinNodeDiscoveryData <- ServicesJoinNodeDiscoveryData
>
> Also, I had a short talk with Alexey Goncharuk about the problem of
> nullified custom messages. I changed the implementation to a lock-free
> solution which allows us to nullify messages depend on an using
> counter.
>
> In comparison with high priority listener, this allows us to not copy
> custom discovery event in service deployment manager and work with the
> original object.
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:57 AM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
> >
> > Denis, great news!
> >
> > Alexey, Vova, Yakov, do you want to take a look at this PR?
> >
> >
> >
> > В Ср, 19/12/2018 в 18:47 +0300, Denis Mekhanikov пишет:
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I finished my code review. The pool request looks good to me.
> > >
> > > Does anybody else want to look at the changes?
> > > There are a few points, that we didn't meet an agreement on,
> > > though they don't affect the behaviour in any way:
> > >
> > >- *Class naming. * See the discussion above.
> > >- *Unnecessary task object cleaning. *
> > >IMO, ServicesDeploymentTask#clear() method doesn't do anything useful,
> > >and it should be removed.
> > >By the moment, when this method is called, the task object is removed
> > >from all collections anyway, so it's ready for garbage collection.
> > >Removing data from it doesn't help anybody.
> > >-
> > > *Unnecessary tests. *ServiceInfoSelfTest and
> > >ServicesDeploymentProcessIdSelfTest look excessive to me.
> > >I don't see any point in testing an interface implementation, that only
> > >saves some objects and returns them from certain methods.
> > >- Interface for events with servicesDeploymentActions() method.
> > >Take a look at the discussion:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434/files/30e69d9a53ce6ea16c4e9d15354e94360caa719d#r239442342
> > >
> > > Also solution with *DiscoveryCustomEvent#nullifyingCustomMsgLock* looks
> > > clumsy to me.
> > > The problem with nullifying of *DiscoveryCustomEvent#customMsg* field can
> > > be solved
> > > by making *ServiceDiscoveryListener* a high priority listener.
> > >
> > > Or *DiscoveryCustomEvent#customMessage()* method could be marked
> > > synchronized and
> > > *GridEventStorageManager#notifyListeners(..)* method could synchronize on
> > > the event object.
> > > But this solution is the same, it's just a matter of taste.
> > >
> > > If anybody wants to look the the code of the PR, please consider these
> > > points as well.
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > ср, 19 дек. 2018 г. в 17:37, Nikolay Izhikov :
> > >
> > > > Denis,
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that differences with your and my naming is huge :)
> > > > And, it's definetely a matter of taste.
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Igniters,

Please, let us know if someone is going to do an additional review?

We should know can we merge the PR since it has been approved by
Nikolay Izhikov and Denis Mekhanikov or we should wait for other
community members.

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:52 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
>
> I think I found names which should satisfy me and Denis, and possibly Nikolay 
> )
>
> See the following names (Actual name <- Previously used):
>
> - ServiceDeploymentManager <- ServicesDeploymentManager
> - ServiceDeploymentActions <- ServicesDeploymentActions
> - ServiceDeploymentProcessId <- ServicesDeploymentProcessId
> - ServiceDeploymentTask <- ServicesDeploymentTask
>
> - ServiceDeploymentRequest <- ServiceDeploymentChange
> - ServiceUndeploymentRequest <- ServiceUndeploymentChange
> - ServiceChangeAbstractRequest <- ServiceAbstractChange
>
> - ServiceSingleNodeDeploymentResult <- ServiceSingleDeploymentsResults
> - ServiceSingleNodeDeploymentResultBatch <- ServicesSingleDeploymentsMessage
>
> - ServiceClusterDeploymentResult <- ServiceFullDeploymentsResults
> - ServiceClusterDeploymentResultBatch <- ServicesFullDeploymentsMessage
>
> - ServiceProcessorCommonDiscoveryData <- ServicesCommonDiscoveryData
> - ServiceProcessorJoinNodeDiscoveryData <- ServicesJoinNodeDiscoveryData
>
> Also, I had a short talk with Alexey Goncharuk about the problem of
> nullified custom messages. I changed the implementation to a lock-free
> solution which allows us to nullify messages depend on an using
> counter.
>
> In comparison with high priority listener, this allows us to not copy
> custom discovery event in service deployment manager and work with the
> original object.
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:57 AM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
> >
> > Denis, great news!
> >
> > Alexey, Vova, Yakov, do you want to take a look at this PR?
> >
> >
> >
> > В Ср, 19/12/2018 в 18:47 +0300, Denis Mekhanikov пишет:
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I finished my code review. The pool request looks good to me.
> > >
> > > Does anybody else want to look at the changes?
> > > There are a few points, that we didn't meet an agreement on,
> > > though they don't affect the behaviour in any way:
> > >
> > >- *Class naming. * See the discussion above.
> > >- *Unnecessary task object cleaning. *
> > >IMO, ServicesDeploymentTask#clear() method doesn't do anything useful,
> > >and it should be removed.
> > >By the moment, when this method is called, the task object is removed
> > >from all collections anyway, so it's ready for garbage collection.
> > >Removing data from it doesn't help anybody.
> > >-
> > > *Unnecessary tests. *ServiceInfoSelfTest and
> > >ServicesDeploymentProcessIdSelfTest look excessive to me.
> > >I don't see any point in testing an interface implementation, that only
> > >saves some objects and returns them from certain methods.
> > >- Interface for events with servicesDeploymentActions() method.
> > >Take a look at the discussion:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434/files/30e69d9a53ce6ea16c4e9d15354e94360caa719d#r239442342
> > >
> > > Also solution with *DiscoveryCustomEvent#nullifyingCustomMsgLock* looks
> > > clumsy to me.
> > > The problem with nullifying of *DiscoveryCustomEvent#customMsg* field can
> > > be solved
> > > by making *ServiceDiscoveryListener* a high priority listener.
> > >
> > > Or *DiscoveryCustomEvent#customMessage()* method could be marked
> > > synchronized and
> > > *GridEventStorageManager#notifyListeners(..)* method could synchronize on
> > > the event object.
> > > But this solution is the same, it's just a matter of taste.
> > >
> > > If anybody wants to look the the code of the PR, please consider these
> > > points as well.
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > ср, 19 дек. 2018 г. в 17:37, Nikolay Izhikov :
> > >
> > > > Denis,
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that differences with your and my naming is huge :)
> > > > And, it's definetely a matter of taste.
> > > >
> > > > If there is no any other issues with PR let's rename and move on! :)
> > > >
> > > > ср, 19 дек. 2018 г. в 17:32, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > > >
> > > > > > 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 
> > > > > 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Slava,
> > > > > > I think, it's better to replace word "Change" with "Request".
> > > > > >
> > > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

I think I found names which should satisfy me and Denis, and possibly Nikolay )

See the following names (Actual name <- Previously used):

- ServiceDeploymentManager <- ServicesDeploymentManager
- ServiceDeploymentActions <- ServicesDeploymentActions
- ServiceDeploymentProcessId <- ServicesDeploymentProcessId
- ServiceDeploymentTask <- ServicesDeploymentTask

- ServiceDeploymentRequest <- ServiceDeploymentChange
- ServiceUndeploymentRequest <- ServiceUndeploymentChange
- ServiceChangeAbstractRequest <- ServiceAbstractChange

- ServiceSingleNodeDeploymentResult <- ServiceSingleDeploymentsResults
- ServiceSingleNodeDeploymentResultBatch <- ServicesSingleDeploymentsMessage

- ServiceClusterDeploymentResult <- ServiceFullDeploymentsResults
- ServiceClusterDeploymentResultBatch <- ServicesFullDeploymentsMessage

- ServiceProcessorCommonDiscoveryData <- ServicesCommonDiscoveryData
- ServiceProcessorJoinNodeDiscoveryData <- ServicesJoinNodeDiscoveryData

Also, I had a short talk with Alexey Goncharuk about the problem of
nullified custom messages. I changed the implementation to a lock-free
solution which allows us to nullify messages depend on an using
counter.

In comparison with high priority listener, this allows us to not copy
custom discovery event in service deployment manager and work with the
original object.

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:57 AM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
>
> Denis, great news!
>
> Alexey, Vova, Yakov, do you want to take a look at this PR?
>
>
>
> В Ср, 19/12/2018 в 18:47 +0300, Denis Mekhanikov пишет:
> > Guys,
> >
> > I finished my code review. The pool request looks good to me.
> >
> > Does anybody else want to look at the changes?
> > There are a few points, that we didn't meet an agreement on,
> > though they don't affect the behaviour in any way:
> >
> >- *Class naming. * See the discussion above.
> >- *Unnecessary task object cleaning. *
> >IMO, ServicesDeploymentTask#clear() method doesn't do anything useful,
> >and it should be removed.
> >By the moment, when this method is called, the task object is removed
> >from all collections anyway, so it's ready for garbage collection.
> >Removing data from it doesn't help anybody.
> >-
> > *Unnecessary tests. *ServiceInfoSelfTest and
> >ServicesDeploymentProcessIdSelfTest look excessive to me.
> >I don't see any point in testing an interface implementation, that only
> >saves some objects and returns them from certain methods.
> >- Interface for events with servicesDeploymentActions() method.
> >Take a look at the discussion:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434/files/30e69d9a53ce6ea16c4e9d15354e94360caa719d#r239442342
> >
> > Also solution with *DiscoveryCustomEvent#nullifyingCustomMsgLock* looks
> > clumsy to me.
> > The problem with nullifying of *DiscoveryCustomEvent#customMsg* field can
> > be solved
> > by making *ServiceDiscoveryListener* a high priority listener.
> >
> > Or *DiscoveryCustomEvent#customMessage()* method could be marked
> > synchronized and
> > *GridEventStorageManager#notifyListeners(..)* method could synchronize on
> > the event object.
> > But this solution is the same, it's just a matter of taste.
> >
> > If anybody wants to look the the code of the PR, please consider these
> > points as well.
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > ср, 19 дек. 2018 г. в 17:37, Nikolay Izhikov :
> >
> > > Denis,
> > >
> > > I don't think that differences with your and my naming is huge :)
> > > And, it's definetely a matter of taste.
> > >
> > > If there is no any other issues with PR let's rename and move on! :)
> > >
> > > ср, 19 дек. 2018 г. в 17:32, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > >
> > > > > 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 
> > > > 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 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Denis, great news!

Alexey, Vova, Yakov, do you want to take a look at this PR?



В Ср, 19/12/2018 в 18:47 +0300, Denis Mekhanikov пишет:
> Guys,
> 
> I finished my code review. The pool request looks good to me.
> 
> Does anybody else want to look at the changes?
> There are a few points, that we didn't meet an agreement on,
> though they don't affect the behaviour in any way:
> 
>- *Class naming. * See the discussion above.
>- *Unnecessary task object cleaning. *
>IMO, ServicesDeploymentTask#clear() method doesn't do anything useful,
>and it should be removed.
>By the moment, when this method is called, the task object is removed
>from all collections anyway, so it's ready for garbage collection.
>Removing data from it doesn't help anybody.
>-
> *Unnecessary tests. *ServiceInfoSelfTest and
>ServicesDeploymentProcessIdSelfTest look excessive to me.
>I don't see any point in testing an interface implementation, that only
>saves some objects and returns them from certain methods.
>- Interface for events with servicesDeploymentActions() method.
>Take a look at the discussion:
>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434/files/30e69d9a53ce6ea16c4e9d15354e94360caa719d#r239442342
> 
> Also solution with *DiscoveryCustomEvent#nullifyingCustomMsgLock* looks
> clumsy to me.
> The problem with nullifying of *DiscoveryCustomEvent#customMsg* field can
> be solved
> by making *ServiceDiscoveryListener* a high priority listener.
> 
> Or *DiscoveryCustomEvent#customMessage()* method could be marked
> synchronized and
> *GridEventStorageManager#notifyListeners(..)* method could synchronize on
> the event object.
> But this solution is the same, it's just a matter of taste.
> 
> If anybody wants to look the the code of the PR, please consider these
> points as well.
> 
> Denis
> 
> ср, 19 дек. 2018 г. в 17:37, Nikolay Izhikov :
> 
> > Denis,
> > 
> > I don't think that differences with your and my naming is huge :)
> > And, it's definetely a matter of taste.
> > 
> > If there is no any other issues with PR let's rename and move on! :)
> > 
> > ср, 19 дек. 2018 г. в 17:32, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > 
> > > > 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 
> > > 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 :
> > > > 
> > > > > > *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 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

Guys,

I finished my code review. The pool request looks good to me.

Does anybody else want to look at the changes?
There are a few points, that we didn't meet an agreement on,
though they don't affect the behaviour in any way:

   - *Class naming. * See the discussion above.
   - *Unnecessary task object cleaning. *
   IMO, ServicesDeploymentTask#clear() method doesn't do anything useful,
   and it should be removed.
   By the moment, when this method is called, the task object is removed
   from all collections anyway, so it's ready for garbage collection.
   Removing data from it doesn't help anybody.
   -
*Unnecessary tests. *ServiceInfoSelfTest and
   ServicesDeploymentProcessIdSelfTest look excessive to me.
   I don't see any point in testing an interface implementation, that only
   saves some objects and returns them from certain methods.
   - Interface for events with servicesDeploymentActions() method.
   Take a look at the discussion:
   
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434/files/30e69d9a53ce6ea16c4e9d15354e94360caa719d#r239442342

Also solution with *DiscoveryCustomEvent#nullifyingCustomMsgLock* looks
clumsy to me.
The problem with nullifying of *DiscoveryCustomEvent#customMsg* field can
be solved
by making *ServiceDiscoveryListener* a high priority listener.

Or *DiscoveryCustomEvent#customMessage()* method could be marked
synchronized and
*GridEventStorageManager#notifyListeners(..)* method could synchronize on
the event object.
But this solution is the same, it's just a matter of taste.

If anybody wants to look the the code of the PR, please consider these
points as well.

Denis

ср, 19 дек. 2018 г. в 17:37, Nikolay Izhikov :

> Denis,
>
> I don't think that differences with your and my naming is huge :)
> And, it's definetely a matter of taste.
>
> If there is no any other issues with PR let's rename and move on! :)
>
> ср, 19 дек. 2018 г. в 17:32, Vyacheslav Daradur :
>
> > > 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 
> > 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 :
> > >
> > > > >*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.
> > > >
> > > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Denis,

I don't think that differences with your and my naming is huge :)
And, it's definetely a matter of taste.

If there is no any other issues with PR let's rename and move on! :)

ср, 19 дек. 2018 г. в 17:32, Vyacheslav Daradur :

> > 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 
> 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 :
> >
> > > >*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 
> > > 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.
> > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

> 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  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 :
>
> > >*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 
> > 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. 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

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 :

> >*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 
> 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 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

>*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  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.
> >
> > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Nikolay Izhikov]

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 :
> 
> > 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 :
> > 
> > > 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
> > > 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

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 :

> 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 :
>
>> 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
>>
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

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 :

> 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
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Alexey Kuznetsov]

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

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Hi, Igniters!

I fixed the notes and tests seem good.

So, let's continue the review [1] [2], any feedback is welcome!

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:16 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
>
> We had the private talk with Nikolay Izhikov, Vladimir Ozerov, Alexey
> Goncharuk, Yakov Zhdanov, Denis Mekhanikov, Dmitriy Pavlov and I would
> like to share the summary with the community:
>
> The architecture of the implemented deployment process looks good in
> general, but the following points should be improved:
> * The new implementation of service processor implementation should be
> moved to a new class;
> * A new system property should be introduced to allow users to switch
> to old implementation in case of errors;
> * Introduced service deployment failures policy should be removed from
> current PR and should be implemented as a different task with detailed
> discussion on dev list to avoid unexpected behavior;
> * The word "exchange" should be removed from classes names to avoid
> confusion with PME classes.
> * Single/full messages should include containing only deployment
> process-related information only (instead of all service) to reduce
> messages size;
>
> Thanks all! I'll let you know once I fix the notes.
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:28 PM Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vyacheslav, Vladimir,
> >
> > Could you please invite me, if you will set up a call.
> >
> > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 13:08, Vladimir Ozerov :
> >
> > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > Still not clear enough for me. I do not see a reason to send another over 
> > > a
> > > ring in case of successful execution. The only reason is an error on a 
> > > node
> > > which require correction (re-deploy to other node, full service undeploy,
> > > etc).
> > > I think it makes sense to organize another call to discuss current
> > > architecture. Otherwise we may spend too much time on emails.
> > >
> > > Vladimir.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:57 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The full map is needed:
> > > > 1) to propagate deployment results which could be different from
> > > > locally calculated in case of any errors;
> > > > 2) to transfer deployment errors across the cluster;
> > > > 3) to undeploy exceeded the number of service instances if needed;
> > > > 4) to get know other nodes that deployment process was finished, this
> > > > need to avoid calling services which have not been deployed yet (or
> > > > can't be deployed). We can't just store pending requests because of
> > > > time to deploy one service instances which may be significant.
> > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:45 PM Vladimir Ozerov 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > >
> > > > > I looked at the document and failed to find explanation why full maps
> > > are
> > > > > needed. Could you point me to a place where it is explained?
> > > > > I ask this because my impression from last discussion was that it is
> > > > never
> > > > > needed. Service status change is initiated by user action, then all
> > > nodes
> > > > > perform respective action locally, then they reply to coordinator, 
> > > > > then
> > > > > coordinator reply to the client, no need a kind of "full" map over
> > > > > discovery again. The only situation when another message over ring is
> > > > > required, is when some node failed to execute local operation (for
> > > > whatever
> > > > > reason) and corrective action is required.
> > > > >
> > > > > Am I missing something?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:50 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Denis, I suggested new names above in the thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please, look at PME document [1] is should be quiet actual to show
> > > the
> > > > > > same flow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/%28Partition+Map%29+Exchange+-+under+the+hood
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:43 AM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, the service assignment is implemented in a way,
> > > > > > > that allows every node calculate the assignment itself, so no
> > > > information
> > > > > > > needs to be shared.
> > > > > > > The only data, that is sent between nodes is deployment results,
> > > > > > > and I don't see an analogy with exchange here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 11:16, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > voze...@gridgain.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you please explain in what situation coordinator needs to
> > > > collect
> > > > > > > > service deployments info from all nodes and share it with the
> > > > cluster?
> > > > > > I
> > > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

We had the private talk with Nikolay Izhikov, Vladimir Ozerov, Alexey
Goncharuk, Yakov Zhdanov, Denis Mekhanikov, Dmitriy Pavlov and I would
like to share the summary with the community:

The architecture of the implemented deployment process looks good in
general, but the following points should be improved:
* The new implementation of service processor implementation should be
moved to a new class;
* A new system property should be introduced to allow users to switch
to old implementation in case of errors;
* Introduced service deployment failures policy should be removed from
current PR and should be implemented as a different task with detailed
discussion on dev list to avoid unexpected behavior;
* The word "exchange" should be removed from classes names to avoid
confusion with PME classes.
* Single/full messages should include containing only deployment
process-related information only (instead of all service) to reduce
messages size;

Thanks all! I'll let you know once I fix the notes.

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:28 PM Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:
>
> Hi Vyacheslav, Vladimir,
>
> Could you please invite me, if you will set up a call.
>
> ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 13:08, Vladimir Ozerov :
>
> > Hi Vyacheslav,
> >
> > Still not clear enough for me. I do not see a reason to send another over a
> > ring in case of successful execution. The only reason is an error on a node
> > which require correction (re-deploy to other node, full service undeploy,
> > etc).
> > I think it makes sense to organize another call to discuss current
> > architecture. Otherwise we may spend too much time on emails.
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:57 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The full map is needed:
> > > 1) to propagate deployment results which could be different from
> > > locally calculated in case of any errors;
> > > 2) to transfer deployment errors across the cluster;
> > > 3) to undeploy exceeded the number of service instances if needed;
> > > 4) to get know other nodes that deployment process was finished, this
> > > need to avoid calling services which have not been deployed yet (or
> > > can't be deployed). We can't just store pending requests because of
> > > time to deploy one service instances which may be significant.
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:45 PM Vladimir Ozerov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > >
> > > > I looked at the document and failed to find explanation why full maps
> > are
> > > > needed. Could you point me to a place where it is explained?
> > > > I ask this because my impression from last discussion was that it is
> > > never
> > > > needed. Service status change is initiated by user action, then all
> > nodes
> > > > perform respective action locally, then they reply to coordinator, then
> > > > coordinator reply to the client, no need a kind of "full" map over
> > > > discovery again. The only situation when another message over ring is
> > > > required, is when some node failed to execute local operation (for
> > > whatever
> > > > reason) and corrective action is required.
> > > >
> > > > Am I missing something?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:50 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Denis, I suggested new names above in the thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please, look at PME document [1] is should be quiet actual to show
> > the
> > > > > same flow.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/%28Partition+Map%29+Exchange+-+under+the+hood
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:43 AM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, the service assignment is implemented in a way,
> > > > > > that allows every node calculate the assignment itself, so no
> > > information
> > > > > > needs to be shared.
> > > > > > The only data, that is sent between nodes is deployment results,
> > > > > > and I don't see an analogy with exchange here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 11:16, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > voze...@gridgain.com
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you please explain in what situation coordinator needs to
> > > collect
> > > > > > > service deployments info from all nodes and share it with the
> > > cluster?
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > cannot remember from our design discussion when it is needed.
> > > Global
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > normally shared through discovery and only on node join, In this
> > > case
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > use "DiscoveryDataBags", not separate messages.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think request-response is not suitable terms.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nodes send to coordinator maps 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi Vyacheslav, Vladimir,

Could you please invite me, if you will set up a call.

ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 13:08, Vladimir Ozerov :

> Hi Vyacheslav,
>
> Still not clear enough for me. I do not see a reason to send another over a
> ring in case of successful execution. The only reason is an error on a node
> which require correction (re-deploy to other node, full service undeploy,
> etc).
> I think it makes sense to organize another call to discuss current
> architecture. Otherwise we may spend too much time on emails.
>
> Vladimir.
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:57 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > The full map is needed:
> > 1) to propagate deployment results which could be different from
> > locally calculated in case of any errors;
> > 2) to transfer deployment errors across the cluster;
> > 3) to undeploy exceeded the number of service instances if needed;
> > 4) to get know other nodes that deployment process was finished, this
> > need to avoid calling services which have not been deployed yet (or
> > can't be deployed). We can't just store pending requests because of
> > time to deploy one service instances which may be significant.
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:45 PM Vladimir Ozerov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > I looked at the document and failed to find explanation why full maps
> are
> > > needed. Could you point me to a place where it is explained?
> > > I ask this because my impression from last discussion was that it is
> > never
> > > needed. Service status change is initiated by user action, then all
> nodes
> > > perform respective action locally, then they reply to coordinator, then
> > > coordinator reply to the client, no need a kind of "full" map over
> > > discovery again. The only situation when another message over ring is
> > > required, is when some node failed to execute local operation (for
> > whatever
> > > reason) and corrective action is required.
> > >
> > > Am I missing something?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:50 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Denis, I suggested new names above in the thread.
> > > >
> > > > Please, look at PME document [1] is should be quiet actual to show
> the
> > > > same flow.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/%28Partition+Map%29+Exchange+-+under+the+hood
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:43 AM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, the service assignment is implemented in a way,
> > > > > that allows every node calculate the assignment itself, so no
> > information
> > > > > needs to be shared.
> > > > > The only data, that is sent between nodes is deployment results,
> > > > > and I don't see an analogy with exchange here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 11:16, Vladimir Ozerov <
> voze...@gridgain.com
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you please explain in what situation coordinator needs to
> > collect
> > > > > > service deployments info from all nodes and share it with the
> > cluster?
> > > > I
> > > > > > cannot remember from our design discussion when it is needed.
> > Global
> > > > state
> > > > > > normally shared through discovery and only on node join, In this
> > case
> > > > we
> > > > > > use "DiscoveryDataBags", not separate messages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think request-response is not suitable terms.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nodes send to coordinator maps of actual service deployments
> > which
> > > > > > > contains what count of instances of each service node hosts
> > locally.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Coordinator sends to the cluster the full map of deployments
> > across
> > > > the
> > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:04 AM Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > voze...@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I do not know what is correct term :-) What I said is that
> > > > "exchange"
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > counter intuitive here. There is no "exchange", instead nodes
> > send
> > > > > > > > information to coordinator that they finished some operation.
> > E.g.
> > > > we
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > the same for schema changes (index creation), and as Denis
> > > > suggested,
> > > > > > > > Request-Response is correct suffixes here. Message name
> should
> > > > explain
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > really happened, instead of describing things which are
> > somewhat
> > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > internal flow.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > nizhi...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Hi Vyacheslav,

Still not clear enough for me. I do not see a reason to send another over a
ring in case of successful execution. The only reason is an error on a node
which require correction (re-deploy to other node, full service undeploy,
etc).
I think it makes sense to organize another call to discuss current
architecture. Otherwise we may spend too much time on emails.

Vladimir.

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:57 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> The full map is needed:
> 1) to propagate deployment results which could be different from
> locally calculated in case of any errors;
> 2) to transfer deployment errors across the cluster;
> 3) to undeploy exceeded the number of service instances if needed;
> 4) to get know other nodes that deployment process was finished, this
> need to avoid calling services which have not been deployed yet (or
> can't be deployed). We can't just store pending requests because of
> time to deploy one service instances which may be significant.
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:45 PM Vladimir Ozerov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Vyacheslav,
> >
> > I looked at the document and failed to find explanation why full maps are
> > needed. Could you point me to a place where it is explained?
> > I ask this because my impression from last discussion was that it is
> never
> > needed. Service status change is initiated by user action, then all nodes
> > perform respective action locally, then they reply to coordinator, then
> > coordinator reply to the client, no need a kind of "full" map over
> > discovery again. The only situation when another message over ring is
> > required, is when some node failed to execute local operation (for
> whatever
> > reason) and corrective action is required.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:50 AM Vyacheslav Daradur  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Denis, I suggested new names above in the thread.
> > >
> > > Please, look at PME document [1] is should be quiet actual to show the
> > > same flow.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/%28Partition+Map%29+Exchange+-+under+the+hood
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:43 AM Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > >
> > > > Actually, the service assignment is implemented in a way,
> > > > that allows every node calculate the assignment itself, so no
> information
> > > > needs to be shared.
> > > > The only data, that is sent between nodes is deployment results,
> > > > and I don't see an analogy with exchange here.
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 11:16, Vladimir Ozerov  >:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you please explain in what situation coordinator needs to
> collect
> > > > > service deployments info from all nodes and share it with the
> cluster?
> > > I
> > > > > cannot remember from our design discussion when it is needed.
> Global
> > > state
> > > > > normally shared through discovery and only on node join, In this
> case
> > > we
> > > > > use "DiscoveryDataBags", not separate messages.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think request-response is not suitable terms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nodes send to coordinator maps of actual service deployments
> which
> > > > > > contains what count of instances of each service node hosts
> locally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Coordinator sends to the cluster the full map of deployments
> across
> > > the
> > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:04 AM Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > voze...@gridgain.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do not know what is correct term :-) What I said is that
> > > "exchange"
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > counter intuitive here. There is no "exchange", instead nodes
> send
> > > > > > > information to coordinator that they finished some operation.
> E.g.
> > > we
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > the same for schema changes (index creation), and as Denis
> > > suggested,
> > > > > > > Request-Response is correct suffixes here. Message name should
> > > explain
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > really happened, instead of describing things which are
> somewhat
> > > > > similar
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > internal flow.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > nizhi...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What is correct term?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov
> voze...@gridgain.com
> > > :
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We
> > > should not
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same term for different things.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

The full map is needed:
1) to propagate deployment results which could be different from
locally calculated in case of any errors;
2) to transfer deployment errors across the cluster;
3) to undeploy exceeded the number of service instances if needed;
4) to get know other nodes that deployment process was finished, this
need to avoid calling services which have not been deployed yet (or
can't be deployed). We can't just store pending requests because of
time to deploy one service instances which may be significant.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:45 PM Vladimir Ozerov  wrote:
>
> Vyacheslav,
>
> I looked at the document and failed to find explanation why full maps are
> needed. Could you point me to a place where it is explained?
> I ask this because my impression from last discussion was that it is never
> needed. Service status change is initiated by user action, then all nodes
> perform respective action locally, then they reply to coordinator, then
> coordinator reply to the client, no need a kind of "full" map over
> discovery again. The only situation when another message over ring is
> required, is when some node failed to execute local operation (for whatever
> reason) and corrective action is required.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:50 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > Denis, I suggested new names above in the thread.
> >
> > Please, look at PME document [1] is should be quiet actual to show the
> > same flow.
> >
> > [1]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/%28Partition+Map%29+Exchange+-+under+the+hood
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:43 AM Denis Mekhanikov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > Actually, the service assignment is implemented in a way,
> > > that allows every node calculate the assignment itself, so no information
> > > needs to be shared.
> > > The only data, that is sent between nodes is deployment results,
> > > and I don't see an analogy with exchange here.
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 11:16, Vladimir Ozerov :
> > >
> > > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > > >
> > > > Could you please explain in what situation coordinator needs to collect
> > > > service deployments info from all nodes and share it with the cluster?
> > I
> > > > cannot remember from our design discussion when it is needed. Global
> > state
> > > > normally shared through discovery and only on node join, In this case
> > we
> > > > use "DiscoveryDataBags", not separate messages.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think request-response is not suitable terms.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nodes send to coordinator maps of actual service deployments which
> > > > > contains what count of instances of each service node hosts locally.
> > > > >
> > > > > Coordinator sends to the cluster the full map of deployments across
> > the
> > > > > cluster.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:04 AM Vladimir Ozerov <
> > voze...@gridgain.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not know what is correct term :-) What I said is that
> > "exchange"
> > > > is
> > > > > > counter intuitive here. There is no "exchange", instead nodes send
> > > > > > information to coordinator that they finished some operation. E.g.
> > we
> > > > do
> > > > > > the same for schema changes (index creation), and as Denis
> > suggested,
> > > > > > Request-Response is correct suffixes here. Message name should
> > explain
> > > > > what
> > > > > > really happened, instead of describing things which are somewhat
> > > > similar
> > > > > in
> > > > > > internal flow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > nizhi...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What is correct term?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov voze...@gridgain.com
> > :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We
> > should not
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same term for different things.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so
> > > > long.
> > > > > > > > > I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more
> > > > > comments
> > > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I see, that you called things analogously to partition map
> > > > > exchange.
> > > > > > > > > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> > > > > > > > > The partition map exchange is called this 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Vyacheslav,

I looked at the document and failed to find explanation why full maps are
needed. Could you point me to a place where it is explained?
I ask this because my impression from last discussion was that it is never
needed. Service status change is initiated by user action, then all nodes
perform respective action locally, then they reply to coordinator, then
coordinator reply to the client, no need a kind of "full" map over
discovery again. The only situation when another message over ring is
required, is when some node failed to execute local operation (for whatever
reason) and corrective action is required.

Am I missing something?

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:50 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> Denis, I suggested new names above in the thread.
>
> Please, look at PME document [1] is should be quiet actual to show the
> same flow.
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/%28Partition+Map%29+Exchange+-+under+the+hood
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:43 AM Denis Mekhanikov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Vyacheslav,
> >
> > Actually, the service assignment is implemented in a way,
> > that allows every node calculate the assignment itself, so no information
> > needs to be shared.
> > The only data, that is sent between nodes is deployment results,
> > and I don't see an analogy with exchange here.
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 11:16, Vladimir Ozerov :
> >
> > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > Could you please explain in what situation coordinator needs to collect
> > > service deployments info from all nodes and share it with the cluster?
> I
> > > cannot remember from our design discussion when it is needed. Global
> state
> > > normally shared through discovery and only on node join, In this case
> we
> > > use "DiscoveryDataBags", not separate messages.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think request-response is not suitable terms.
> > > >
> > > > Nodes send to coordinator maps of actual service deployments which
> > > > contains what count of instances of each service node hosts locally.
> > > >
> > > > Coordinator sends to the cluster the full map of deployments across
> the
> > > > cluster.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:04 AM Vladimir Ozerov <
> voze...@gridgain.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not know what is correct term :-) What I said is that
> "exchange"
> > > is
> > > > > counter intuitive here. There is no "exchange", instead nodes send
> > > > > information to coordinator that they finished some operation. E.g.
> we
> > > do
> > > > > the same for schema changes (index creation), and as Denis
> suggested,
> > > > > Request-Response is correct suffixes here. Message name should
> explain
> > > > what
> > > > > really happened, instead of describing things which are somewhat
> > > similar
> > > > in
> > > > > internal flow.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhi...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is correct term?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov voze...@gridgain.com
> :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We
> should not
> > > > use
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > same term for different things.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so
> > > long.
> > > > > > > > I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
> > > > > > > > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more
> > > > comments
> > > > > > > later.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see, that you called things analogously to partition map
> > > > exchange.
> > > > > > > > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I
> > > don't
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> > > > > > > > The partition map exchange is called this way because it
> involves
> > > > an
> > > > > > > actual
> > > > > > > > exchange of information.
> > > > > > > > All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they
> have,
> > > and
> > > > what
> > > > > > > > their states are.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I
> would
> > > > skip the
> > > > > > > > "exchange" part.
> > > > > > > > And *single message ->* *full message* look more like
> *request ->
> > > > > > > response*
> > > > > > > > in case of services.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something
> else.
> > > > > > > > Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
> > > > > > > > And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my
> > > colleague a
> > > > > > word
> > > > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Denis, I suggested new names above in the thread.

Please, look at PME document [1] is should be quiet actual to show the
same flow.

[1] 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/%28Partition+Map%29+Exchange+-+under+the+hood

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:43 AM Denis Mekhanikov  wrote:
>
> Vyacheslav,
>
> Actually, the service assignment is implemented in a way,
> that allows every node calculate the assignment itself, so no information
> needs to be shared.
> The only data, that is sent between nodes is deployment results,
> and I don't see an analogy with exchange here.
>
> Denis
>
> ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 11:16, Vladimir Ozerov :
>
> > Hi Vyacheslav,
> >
> > Could you please explain in what situation coordinator needs to collect
> > service deployments info from all nodes and share it with the cluster? I
> > cannot remember from our design discussion when it is needed. Global state
> > normally shared through discovery and only on node join, In this case we
> > use "DiscoveryDataBags", not separate messages.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I think request-response is not suitable terms.
> > >
> > > Nodes send to coordinator maps of actual service deployments which
> > > contains what count of instances of each service node hosts locally.
> > >
> > > Coordinator sends to the cluster the full map of deployments across the
> > > cluster.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:04 AM Vladimir Ozerov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I do not know what is correct term :-) What I said is that "exchange"
> > is
> > > > counter intuitive here. There is no "exchange", instead nodes send
> > > > information to coordinator that they finished some operation. E.g. we
> > do
> > > > the same for schema changes (index creation), and as Denis suggested,
> > > > Request-Response is correct suffixes here. Message name should explain
> > > what
> > > > really happened, instead of describing things which are somewhat
> > similar
> > > in
> > > > internal flow.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is correct term?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov voze...@gridgain.com:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We should not
> > > use
> > > > > the
> > > > > > same term for different things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so
> > long.
> > > > > > > I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
> > > > > > > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more
> > > comments
> > > > > > later.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see, that you called things analogously to partition map
> > > exchange.
> > > > > > > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I
> > don't
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> > > > > > > The partition map exchange is called this way because it involves
> > > an
> > > > > > actual
> > > > > > > exchange of information.
> > > > > > > All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they have,
> > and
> > > what
> > > > > > > their states are.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I would
> > > skip the
> > > > > > > "exchange" part.
> > > > > > > And *single message ->* *full message* look more like *request ->
> > > > > > response*
> > > > > > > in case of services.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something else.
> > > > > > > Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
> > > > > > > And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my
> > colleague a
> > > > > word
> > > > > > > "exchange",
> > > > > > > and get "which one?" in return.
> > > > > > > So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to
> > something
> > > > > else.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no
> > > end in
> > > > > > > sign.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new
> > > > > features
> > > > > > > > like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about
> > > new
> > > > > > > > tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for
> > our
> > > > > > > > end-users.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

During each deployment (exchange) process nodes send to the
coordinator (p2p) deployments maps, caused:
- users requests (deploy/undeploy)
- affinity change (if affinity services present)
- topology change (if services present)
- activation (if services descriptors present)

Also, single node deployment results contain deployment errors which
aggregate by coordinator and propagates across the cluster. And this
is important for introduced service deployment failures policy.

Please, see document for details:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:16 AM Vladimir Ozerov  wrote:
>
> Hi Vyacheslav,
>
> Could you please explain in what situation coordinator needs to collect
> service deployments info from all nodes and share it with the cluster? I
> cannot remember from our design discussion when it is needed. Global state
> normally shared through discovery and only on node join, In this case we
> use "DiscoveryDataBags", not separate messages.
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > I think request-response is not suitable terms.
> >
> > Nodes send to coordinator maps of actual service deployments which
> > contains what count of instances of each service node hosts locally.
> >
> > Coordinator sends to the cluster the full map of deployments across the
> > cluster.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:04 AM Vladimir Ozerov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not know what is correct term :-) What I said is that "exchange" is
> > > counter intuitive here. There is no "exchange", instead nodes send
> > > information to coordinator that they finished some operation. E.g. we do
> > > the same for schema changes (index creation), and as Denis suggested,
> > > Request-Response is correct suffixes here. Message name should explain
> > what
> > > really happened, instead of describing things which are somewhat similar
> > in
> > > internal flow.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > >
> > > > What is correct term?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov voze...@gridgain.com:
> > > >
> > > > > Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We should not
> > use
> > > > the
> > > > > same term for different things.
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so long.
> > > > > > I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
> > > > > > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more
> > comments
> > > > > later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see, that you called things analogously to partition map
> > exchange.
> > > > > > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I don't
> > > > > really
> > > > > > like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> > > > > > The partition map exchange is called this way because it involves
> > an
> > > > > actual
> > > > > > exchange of information.
> > > > > > All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they have, and
> > what
> > > > > > their states are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I would
> > skip the
> > > > > > "exchange" part.
> > > > > > And *single message ->* *full message* look more like *request ->
> > > > > response*
> > > > > > in case of services.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something else.
> > > > > > Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
> > > > > > And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my colleague a
> > > > word
> > > > > > "exchange",
> > > > > > and get "which one?" in return.
> > > > > > So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to something
> > > > else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no
> > end in
> > > > > > sign.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new
> > > > features
> > > > > > > like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about
> > new
> > > > > > > tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our
> > > > > > > end-users.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of
> > > > questions.
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

Vyacheslav,

Actually, the service assignment is implemented in a way,
that allows every node calculate the assignment itself, so no information
needs to be shared.
The only data, that is sent between nodes is deployment results,
and I don't see an analogy with exchange here.

Denis

ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 11:16, Vladimir Ozerov :

> Hi Vyacheslav,
>
> Could you please explain in what situation coordinator needs to collect
> service deployments info from all nodes and share it with the cluster? I
> cannot remember from our design discussion when it is needed. Global state
> normally shared through discovery and only on node join, In this case we
> use "DiscoveryDataBags", not separate messages.
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > I think request-response is not suitable terms.
> >
> > Nodes send to coordinator maps of actual service deployments which
> > contains what count of instances of each service node hosts locally.
> >
> > Coordinator sends to the cluster the full map of deployments across the
> > cluster.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:04 AM Vladimir Ozerov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not know what is correct term :-) What I said is that "exchange"
> is
> > > counter intuitive here. There is no "exchange", instead nodes send
> > > information to coordinator that they finished some operation. E.g. we
> do
> > > the same for schema changes (index creation), and as Denis suggested,
> > > Request-Response is correct suffixes here. Message name should explain
> > what
> > > really happened, instead of describing things which are somewhat
> similar
> > in
> > > internal flow.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > >
> > > > What is correct term?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov voze...@gridgain.com:
> > > >
> > > > > Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We should not
> > use
> > > > the
> > > > > same term for different things.
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so
> long.
> > > > > > I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
> > > > > > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more
> > comments
> > > > > later.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see, that you called things analogously to partition map
> > exchange.
> > > > > > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I
> don't
> > > > > really
> > > > > > like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> > > > > > The partition map exchange is called this way because it involves
> > an
> > > > > actual
> > > > > > exchange of information.
> > > > > > All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they have,
> and
> > what
> > > > > > their states are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I would
> > skip the
> > > > > > "exchange" part.
> > > > > > And *single message ->* *full message* look more like *request ->
> > > > > response*
> > > > > > in case of services.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something else.
> > > > > > Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
> > > > > > And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my
> colleague a
> > > > word
> > > > > > "exchange",
> > > > > > and get "which one?" in return.
> > > > > > So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to
> something
> > > > else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no
> > end in
> > > > > > sign.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new
> > > > features
> > > > > > > like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about
> > new
> > > > > > > tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for
> our
> > > > > > > end-users.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of
> > > > questions.
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are
> > merged.
> > > > > > > > > I'll do my best to finish the review 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Hi Vyacheslav,

Could you please explain in what situation coordinator needs to collect
service deployments info from all nodes and share it with the cluster? I
cannot remember from our design discussion when it is needed. Global state
normally shared through discovery and only on node join, In this case we
use "DiscoveryDataBags", not separate messages.

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> I think request-response is not suitable terms.
>
> Nodes send to coordinator maps of actual service deployments which
> contains what count of instances of each service node hosts locally.
>
> Coordinator sends to the cluster the full map of deployments across the
> cluster.
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:04 AM Vladimir Ozerov 
> wrote:
> >
> > I do not know what is correct term :-) What I said is that "exchange" is
> > counter intuitive here. There is no "exchange", instead nodes send
> > information to coordinator that they finished some operation. E.g. we do
> > the same for schema changes (index creation), and as Denis suggested,
> > Request-Response is correct suffixes here. Message name should explain
> what
> > really happened, instead of describing things which are somewhat similar
> in
> > internal flow.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > >
> > > What is correct term?
> > >
> > >
> > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov voze...@gridgain.com:
> > >
> > > > Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We should not
> use
> > > the
> > > > same term for different things.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhani...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so long.
> > > > > I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
> > > > > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more
> comments
> > > > later.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see, that you called things analogously to partition map
> exchange.
> > > > > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I don't
> > > > really
> > > > > like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> > > > > The partition map exchange is called this way because it involves
> an
> > > > actual
> > > > > exchange of information.
> > > > > All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they have, and
> what
> > > > > their states are.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I would
> skip the
> > > > > "exchange" part.
> > > > > And *single message ->* *full message* look more like *request ->
> > > > response*
> > > > > in case of services.
> > > > >
> > > > > Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something else.
> > > > > Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
> > > > > And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my colleague a
> > > word
> > > > > "exchange",
> > > > > and get "which one?" in return.
> > > > > So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to something
> > > else.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no
> end in
> > > > > sign.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new
> > > features
> > > > > > like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about
> new
> > > > > > tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our
> > > > > > end-users.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of
> > > questions.
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are
> merged.
> > > > > > > > I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the
> > > upcoming
> > > > > > week.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > nizhi...@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm agree with you.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
> > > > > > > > > Without a date or similar.
> > > > > > > > > Just a list of experts who should review this feature.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Hello, Vladimir.

> There is no "exchange", instead nodes send
information to coordinator that they finished some operation
1. Each node sends to coordinator local deployments results.
2. Coordinator sends to each node full deployment map.

This is the same process we have in PME for me.
What have I miss?

21 нояб. 2018 г. 11:04 AM пользователь "Vladimir Ozerov" <
voze...@gridgain.com> написал:

I do not know what is correct term :-) What I said is that "exchange" is
counter intuitive here. There is no "exchange", instead nodes send
information to coordinator that they finished some operation. E.g. we do
the same for schema changes (index creation), and as Denis suggested,
Request-Response is correct suffixes here. Message name should explain what
really happened, instead of describing things which are somewhat similar in
internal flow.


On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov 
wrote:

> Hello, Vladimir.
>
> What is correct term?
>
>
> ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov voze...@gridgain.com:
>
> > Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We should not use
> the
> > same term for different things.
> >
> > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov :
> >
> > > Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so long.
> > > I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
> > > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more comments
> > later.
> > >
> > > I see, that you called things analogously to partition map exchange.
> > > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I don't
> > really
> > > like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> > > The partition map exchange is called this way because it involves an
> > actual
> > > exchange of information.
> > > All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they have, and
what
> > > their states are.
> > >
> > > There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I would skip
the
> > > "exchange" part.
> > > And *single message ->* *full message* look more like *request ->
> > response*
> > > in case of services.
> > >
> > > Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something else.
> > > Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
> > > And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my colleague a
> word
> > > "exchange",
> > > and get "which one?" in return.
> > > So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to something
> else.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur  >:
> > >
> > > > Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?
> > > >
> > > > Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no end in
> > > sign.
> > > >
> > > > I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new
> features
> > > > like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about new
> > > > tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our
> > > > end-users.
> > > >
> > > > But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of
> questions.
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged.
> > > > > > I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the
> upcoming
> > > > week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhi...@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm agree with you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
> > > > > > > Without a date or similar.
> > > > > > > Just a list of experts who should review this feature.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We
> > should
> > > > not
> > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews
> > are
> > > > ready,
> > > > > > > > irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about
> quality,
> > > not
> > > > speed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda  >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed?
> > > Affinity,
> > > > > > > failure,
> > > > > > > > > etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the
> > wiki
> > > > and
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > our tech writers will get everything documented.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

I think request-response is not suitable terms.

Nodes send to coordinator maps of actual service deployments which
contains what count of instances of each service node hosts locally.

Coordinator sends to the cluster the full map of deployments across the cluster.

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:04 AM Vladimir Ozerov  wrote:
>
> I do not know what is correct term :-) What I said is that "exchange" is
> counter intuitive here. There is no "exchange", instead nodes send
> information to coordinator that they finished some operation. E.g. we do
> the same for schema changes (index creation), and as Denis suggested,
> Request-Response is correct suffixes here. Message name should explain what
> really happened, instead of describing things which are somewhat similar in
> internal flow.
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Vladimir.
> >
> > What is correct term?
> >
> >
> > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov voze...@gridgain.com:
> >
> > > Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We should not use
> > the
> > > same term for different things.
> > >
> > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov :
> > >
> > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > >
> > > > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so long.
> > > > I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
> > > > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more comments
> > > later.
> > > >
> > > > I see, that you called things analogously to partition map exchange.
> > > > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I don't
> > > really
> > > > like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> > > > The partition map exchange is called this way because it involves an
> > > actual
> > > > exchange of information.
> > > > All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they have, and what
> > > > their states are.
> > > >
> > > > There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I would skip the
> > > > "exchange" part.
> > > > And *single message ->* *full message* look more like *request ->
> > > response*
> > > > in case of services.
> > > >
> > > > Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something else.
> > > > Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
> > > > And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my colleague a
> > word
> > > > "exchange",
> > > > and get "which one?" in return.
> > > > So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to something
> > else.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur  > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?
> > > > >
> > > > > Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no end in
> > > > sign.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new
> > features
> > > > > like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about new
> > > > > tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our
> > > > > end-users.
> > > > >
> > > > > But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of
> > questions.
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged.
> > > > > > > I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the
> > upcoming
> > > > > week.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov <
> > nizhi...@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm agree with you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
> > > > > > > > Without a date or similar.
> > > > > > > > Just a list of experts who should review this feature.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We
> > > should
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews
> > > are
> > > > > ready,
> > > > > > > > > irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about
> > quality,
> > > > not
> > > > > speed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda  > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed?
> > > > Affinity,
> > > > > > > > failure,
> > > > > > > > > > etc., right. 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vladimir Ozerov]

I do not know what is correct term :-) What I said is that "exchange" is
counter intuitive here. There is no "exchange", instead nodes send
information to coordinator that they finished some operation. E.g. we do
the same for schema changes (index creation), and as Denis suggested,
Request-Response is correct suffixes here. Message name should explain what
really happened, instead of describing things which are somewhat similar in
internal flow.

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov 
wrote:

> Hello, Vladimir.
>
> What is correct term?
>
>
> ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov voze...@gridgain.com:
>
> > Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We should not use
> the
> > same term for different things.
> >
> > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov :
> >
> > > Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so long.
> > > I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
> > > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more comments
> > later.
> > >
> > > I see, that you called things analogously to partition map exchange.
> > > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I don't
> > really
> > > like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> > > The partition map exchange is called this way because it involves an
> > actual
> > > exchange of information.
> > > All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they have, and what
> > > their states are.
> > >
> > > There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I would skip the
> > > "exchange" part.
> > > And *single message ->* *full message* look more like *request ->
> > response*
> > > in case of services.
> > >
> > > Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something else.
> > > Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
> > > And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my colleague a
> word
> > > "exchange",
> > > and get "which one?" in return.
> > > So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to something
> else.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur  >:
> > >
> > > > Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?
> > > >
> > > > Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no end in
> > > sign.
> > > >
> > > > I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new
> features
> > > > like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about new
> > > > tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our
> > > > end-users.
> > > >
> > > > But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of
> questions.
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged.
> > > > > > I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the
> upcoming
> > > > week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhi...@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm agree with you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
> > > > > > > Without a date or similar.
> > > > > > > Just a list of experts who should review this feature.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We
> > should
> > > > not
> > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews
> > are
> > > > ready,
> > > > > > > > irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about
> quality,
> > > not
> > > > speed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda  >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed?
> > > Affinity,
> > > > > > > failure,
> > > > > > > > > etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the
> > wiki
> > > > and
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > our tech writers will get everything documented.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Services reassignment process takes into account previous
> > > > assignments
> > > > > > > > > > to avoid redundant redeployments.
> > > > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

First, we must agree on names.

I think the valuable word is 'deployment', though 'exchange' may be
used too because there is an exchange of deployments maps during the
deployment process.

To avoid intersections with PME I suggest using the following names:

ServicesFullMapMessage -> ServicesFullDeploymentsMessage
ServicesSingleMapMessage -> ServicesSingleDeploymentsMessage
ServicesExchangeActions -> ServicesDeploymentActions
ServicesDeploymentExchangeId -> ServicesDeploymentId
ServicesDeploymentExchangeTask -> ServicesDeploymentTask
ServicesDeploymentExchangeWorker -> ServicesDeploymentWorker
ServicesDeploymentExchangeManager -> ServicesDeploymentManager
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov  wrote:
>
> Hello, Vladimir.
>
> What is correct term?
>
>
> ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov voze...@gridgain.com:
>
> > Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We should not use the
> > same term for different things.
> >
> > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov :
> >
> > > Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so long.
> > > I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
> > > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more comments
> > later.
> > >
> > > I see, that you called things analogously to partition map exchange.
> > > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I don't
> > really
> > > like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> > > The partition map exchange is called this way because it involves an
> > actual
> > > exchange of information.
> > > All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they have, and what
> > > their states are.
> > >
> > > There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I would skip the
> > > "exchange" part.
> > > And *single message ->* *full message* look more like *request ->
> > response*
> > > in case of services.
> > >
> > > Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something else.
> > > Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
> > > And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my colleague a word
> > > "exchange",
> > > and get "which one?" in return.
> > > So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to something else.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > >
> > > > Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?
> > > >
> > > > Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no end in
> > > sign.
> > > >
> > > > I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new features
> > > > like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about new
> > > > tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our
> > > > end-users.
> > > >
> > > > But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of questions.
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged.
> > > > > > I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the upcoming
> > > > week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov  > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm agree with you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
> > > > > > > Without a date or similar.
> > > > > > > Just a list of experts who should review this feature.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We
> > should
> > > > not
> > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews
> > are
> > > > ready,
> > > > > > > > irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about quality,
> > > not
> > > > speed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda :
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed?
> > > Affinity,
> > > > > > > failure,
> > > > > > > > > etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the
> > wiki
> > > > and
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > our tech writers will get everything documented.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Hello, Vladimir.

What is correct term?


ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov voze...@gridgain.com:

> Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We should not use the
> same term for different things.
>
> вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov :
>
> > Vyacheslav,
> >
> > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so long.
> > I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
> > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more comments
> later.
> >
> > I see, that you called things analogously to partition map exchange.
> > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I don't
> really
> > like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> > The partition map exchange is called this way because it involves an
> actual
> > exchange of information.
> > All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they have, and what
> > their states are.
> >
> > There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I would skip the
> > "exchange" part.
> > And *single message ->* *full message* look more like *request ->
> response*
> > in case of services.
> >
> > Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something else.
> > Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
> > And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my colleague a word
> > "exchange",
> > and get "which one?" in return.
> > So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to something else.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> >
> > > Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?
> > >
> > > Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no end in
> > sign.
> > >
> > > I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new features
> > > like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about new
> > > tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our
> > > end-users.
> > >
> > > But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of questions.
> > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged.
> > > > > I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the upcoming
> > > week.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov  >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm agree with you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
> > > > > > Without a date or similar.
> > > > > > Just a list of experts who should review this feature.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We
> should
> > > not
> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews
> are
> > > ready,
> > > > > > > irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about quality,
> > not
> > > speed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed?
> > Affinity,
> > > > > > failure,
> > > > > > > > etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the
> wiki
> > > and
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > our tech writers will get everything documented.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Services reassignment process takes into account previous
> > > assignments
> > > > > > > > > to avoid redundant redeployments.
> > > > > > > > > So, in the described case, ServiceA won't be moved from
> node1
> > > to
> > > > > > node2.
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda <
> > dma...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and
> > > rolling out
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > capabilities.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new
> > > > > > architecture
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > > a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For
> > > instance,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > > say I have ServiceA running 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We should not use the
same term for different things.

вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov :

> Vyacheslav,
>
> I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so long.
> I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
> I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more comments later.
>
> I see, that you called things analogously to partition map exchange.
> I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I don't really
> like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> The partition map exchange is called this way because it involves an actual
> exchange of information.
> All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they have, and what
> their states are.
>
> There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I would skip the
> "exchange" part.
> And *single message ->* *full message* look more like *request -> response*
> in case of services.
>
> Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something else.
> Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
> And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my colleague a word
> "exchange",
> and get "which one?" in return.
> So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to something else.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Denis
>
> вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur :
>
> > Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?
> >
> > Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no end in
> sign.
> >
> > I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new features
> > like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about new
> > tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our
> > end-users.
> >
> > But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of questions.
> > Thanks!
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged.
> > > > I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the upcoming
> > week.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov :
> > > >
> > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm agree with you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
> > > > > Without a date or similar.
> > > > > Just a list of experts who should review this feature.
> > > > >
> > > > > В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We should
> > not
> > > > > merge
> > > > > > it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews are
> > ready,
> > > > > > irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about quality,
> not
> > speed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed?
> Affinity,
> > > > > failure,
> > > > > > > etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the wiki
> > and
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > our tech writers will get everything documented.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Services reassignment process takes into account previous
> > assignments
> > > > > > > > to avoid redundant redeployments.
> > > > > > > > So, in the described case, ServiceA won't be moved from node1
> > to
> > > > > node2.
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda <
> dma...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and
> > rolling out
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > capabilities.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new
> > > > > architecture
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For
> > instance,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > say I have ServiceA running node1, then node2 joins and I
> > don't
> > > > > want
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > service to be redeployed to any other node.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584#ServiceGridredesign.Phase1.Implementationdetails.-Topologychange
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Denis, thanks for your participation!

>> There is no exchange in case of service deployment
There is some kind of exchange of services map which describes mapping
services instances to nodes in the cluster.

I'm a bit confused because of your notes about naming, the main goal
was to do the code to be transparent for Ignites experts and to not
confuse them.

Also, the messages names and structure has been presented and
discussed with community [1] during a design overview.

[1] 
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Service-Grid-new-design-overview-td34201.html
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 5:19 PM Denis Mekhanikov  wrote:
>
> Vyacheslav,
>
> I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so long.
> I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
> I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more comments later.
>
> I see, that you called things analogously to partition map exchange.
> I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I don't really
> like the idea to use the same names for everything.
> The partition map exchange is called this way because it involves an actual
> exchange of information.
> All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they have, and what
> their states are.
>
> There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I would skip the
> "exchange" part.
> And *single message ->* *full message* look more like *request -> response*
> in case of services.
>
> Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something else.
> Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
> And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my colleague a word
> "exchange",
> and get "which one?" in return.
> So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to something else.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Denis
>
> вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur :
>
> > Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?
> >
> > Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no end in sign.
> >
> > I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new features
> > like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about new
> > tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our
> > end-users.
> >
> > But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of questions.
> > Thanks!
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged.
> > > > I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the upcoming
> > week.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov :
> > > >
> > > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm agree with you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
> > > > > Without a date or similar.
> > > > > Just a list of experts who should review this feature.
> > > > >
> > > > > В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We should
> > not
> > > > > merge
> > > > > > it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews are
> > ready,
> > > > > > irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about quality, not
> > speed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed? Affinity,
> > > > > failure,
> > > > > > > etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the wiki
> > and
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > our tech writers will get everything documented.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Services reassignment process takes into account previous
> > assignments
> > > > > > > > to avoid redundant redeployments.
> > > > > > > > So, in the described case, ServiceA won't be moved from node1
> > to
> > > > > node2.
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and
> > rolling out
> > > > > these
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > capabilities.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new
> > > > > architecture
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For
> > instance,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > > say I have ServiceA running 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

Vyacheslav,

I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so long.
I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday.
I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more comments later.

I see, that you called things analogously to partition map exchange.
I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I don't really
like the idea to use the same names for everything.
The partition map exchange is called this way because it involves an actual
exchange of information.
All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they have, and what
their states are.

There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I would skip the
"exchange" part.
And *single message ->* *full message* look more like *request -> response*
in case of services.

Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something else.
Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense.
And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my colleague a word
"exchange",
and get "which one?" in return.
So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to something else.

What do you think?

Denis

вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur :

> Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?
>
> Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no end in sign.
>
> I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new features
> like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about new
> tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our
> end-users.
>
> But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
> >
> > Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of questions.
> Thanks!
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged.
> > > I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the upcoming
> week.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov :
> > >
> > > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > > >
> > > > I'm agree with you.
> > > >
> > > > Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
> > > > Without a date or similar.
> > > > Just a list of experts who should review this feature.
> > > >
> > > > В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > > This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We should
> not
> > > > merge
> > > > > it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews are
> ready,
> > > > > irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about quality, not
> speed.
> > > > >
> > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed? Affinity,
> > > > failure,
> > > > > > etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the wiki
> and
> > > > then
> > > > > > our tech writers will get everything documented.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Services reassignment process takes into account previous
> assignments
> > > > > > > to avoid redundant redeployments.
> > > > > > > So, in the described case, ServiceA won't be moved from node1
> to
> > > > node2.
> > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and
> rolling out
> > > > these
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > capabilities.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new
> > > > architecture
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For
> instance,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > let's
> > > > > > > > say I have ServiceA running node1, then node2 joins and I
> don't
> > > > want
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > service to be redeployed to any other node.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584#ServiceGridredesign.Phase1.Implementationdetails.-Topologychange
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution?

Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no end in sign.

I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new features
like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about new
tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our
end-users.

But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase.

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
>
> Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of questions. Thanks!
>
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov  
> wrote:
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged.
> > I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the upcoming week.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Denis
> >
> > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov :
> >
> > > Hello, Vladimir.
> > >
> > > I'm agree with you.
> > >
> > > Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
> > > Without a date or similar.
> > > Just a list of experts who should review this feature.
> > >
> > > В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We should not
> > > merge
> > > > it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews are ready,
> > > > irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about quality, not 
> > > > speed.
> > > >
> > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda :
> > > >
> > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > >
> > > > > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed? Affinity,
> > > failure,
> > > > > etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the wiki and
> > > then
> > > > > our tech writers will get everything documented.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Services reassignment process takes into account previous 
> > > > > > assignments
> > > > > > to avoid redundant redeployments.
> > > > > > So, in the described case, ServiceA won't be moved from node1 to
> > > node2.
> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and rolling out
> > > these
> > > > > >
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > capabilities.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new
> > > architecture
> > > > > >
> > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For 
> > > > > > > instance,
> > > > >
> > > > > let's
> > > > > > > say I have ServiceA running node1, then node2 joins and I don't
> > > want
> > > > >
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > service to be redeployed to any other node.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584#ServiceGridredesign.Phase1.Implementationdetails.-Topologychange
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > > dpavlov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > page?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I prepared a description of the implemented solution and
> > > attached
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > to the issue [1].
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This should help during a review. Should I post the document
> > > into
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wiki
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > IEP?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] 
> > > > > > > > > > [2],
> > > > > >
> > > > > > please?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters! Good news!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of questions. Thanks!

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov  wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged.
> I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the upcoming week.
>
> Thanks!
> Denis
>
> сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov :
>
> > Hello, Vladimir.
> >
> > I'm agree with you.
> >
> > Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
> > Without a date or similar.
> > Just a list of experts who should review this feature.
> >
> > В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We should not
> > merge
> > > it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews are ready,
> > > irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about quality, not speed.
> > >
> > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda :
> > >
> > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > >
> > > > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed? Affinity,
> > failure,
> > > > etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the wiki and
> > then
> > > > our tech writers will get everything documented.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Denis,
> > > > >
> > > > > Services reassignment process takes into account previous assignments
> > > > > to avoid redundant redeployments.
> > > > > So, in the described case, ServiceA won't be moved from node1 to
> > node2.
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and rolling out
> > these
> > > > >
> > > > > new
> > > > > > capabilities.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new
> > architecture
> > > > >
> > > > > avoid
> > > > > > a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For instance,
> > > >
> > > > let's
> > > > > > say I have ServiceA running node1, then node2 joins and I don't
> > want
> > > >
> > > > the
> > > > > > service to be redeployed to any other node.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584#ServiceGridredesign.Phase1.Implementationdetails.-Topologychange
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki:
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> > dpavlov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you
> > please
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > page?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > :
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I prepared a description of the implemented solution and
> > attached
> > > > >
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > to the issue [1].
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This should help during a review. Should I post the document
> > into
> > > > >
> > > > > wiki
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > IEP?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] [2],
> > > > >
> > > > > please?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters! Good news!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > However, we need additional review from other Ignite
> > experts.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2].
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Could someone step in and do the review?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel, could you assist?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name
> > > > >
> > > > > instead

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

Guys,

I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged.
I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the upcoming week.

Thanks!
Denis

сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov :

> Hello, Vladimir.
>
> I'm agree with you.
>
> Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
> Without a date or similar.
> Just a list of experts who should review this feature.
>
> В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> > Igniters,
> >
> > This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We should not
> merge
> > it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews are ready,
> > irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about quality, not speed.
> >
> > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda :
> >
> > > Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed? Affinity,
> failure,
> > > etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the wiki and
> then
> > > our tech writers will get everything documented.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Denis,
> > > >
> > > > Services reassignment process takes into account previous assignments
> > > > to avoid redundant redeployments.
> > > > So, in the described case, ServiceA won't be moved from node1 to
> node2.
> > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > >
> > > > > First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and rolling out
> these
> > > >
> > > > new
> > > > > capabilities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new
> architecture
> > > >
> > > > avoid
> > > > > a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For instance,
> > >
> > > let's
> > > > > say I have ServiceA running node1, then node2 joins and I don't
> want
> > >
> > > the
> > > > > service to be redeployed to any other node.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584#ServiceGridredesign.Phase1.Implementationdetails.-Topologychange
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki:
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <
> dpavlov@gmail.com
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you
> please
> > > > > >
> > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > page?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I prepared a description of the implemented solution and
> attached
> > > >
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > to the issue [1].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This should help during a review. Should I post the document
> into
> > > >
> > > > wiki
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > IEP?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] [2],
> > > >
> > > > please?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > >
> > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters! Good news!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, we need additional review from other Ignite
> experts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2].
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Could someone step in and do the review?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > > >
> > > > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pavel, could you assist?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name
> > > >
> > > > instead
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > implementation?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think, it shouldn't be a problem.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > >
> > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think that the replacement of serialized instance
> 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Hello, Vladimir.

I'm agree with you.

Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature?
Without a date or similar. 
Just a list of experts who should review this feature.

В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> Igniters,
> 
> This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We should not merge
> it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews are ready,
> irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about quality, not speed.
> 
> сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda :
> 
> > Vyacheslav,
> > 
> > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed? Affinity, failure,
> > etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the wiki and then
> > our tech writers will get everything documented.
> > 
> > --
> > Denis
> > 
> > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Denis,
> > > 
> > > Services reassignment process takes into account previous assignments
> > > to avoid redundant redeployments.
> > > So, in the described case, ServiceA won't be moved from node1 to node2.
> > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > 
> > > > First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and rolling out these
> > > 
> > > new
> > > > capabilities.
> > > > 
> > > > Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new architecture
> > > 
> > > avoid
> > > > a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For instance,
> > 
> > let's
> > > > say I have ServiceA running node1, then node2 joins and I don't want
> > 
> > the
> > > > service to be redeployed to any other node.
> > > > 
> > > > [1]
> > > > 
> > 
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584#ServiceGridredesign.Phase1.Implementationdetails.-Topologychange
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Denis
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM Vyacheslav Daradur  > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki:
> > > > > 
> > 
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov  > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you please
> > > > > 
> > > > > create a
> > > > > > page?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur  > > 
> > > :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I prepared a description of the implemented solution and attached
> > > 
> > > it
> > > > > > > to the issue [1].
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This should help during a review. Should I post the document into
> > > 
> > > wiki
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > IEP?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] [2],
> > > 
> > > please?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > 
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters! Good news!
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > However, we need additional review from other Ignite experts.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2].
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Could someone step in and do the review?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > > 
> > > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Pavel, could you assist?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name
> > > 
> > > instead
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > implementation?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I think, it shouldn't be a problem.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > 
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes
> > > 
> > > sense
> > > > > to me
> > > > > > > > > > for Java part.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > But how it should work for .NET client?
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > nsamelc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Igniters,

This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We should not merge
it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews are ready,
irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about quality, not speed.

сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda :

> Vyacheslav,
>
> What are the cases when the service can be redeployed? Affinity, failure,
> etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the wiki and then
> our tech writers will get everything documented.
>
> --
> Denis
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > Denis,
> >
> > Services reassignment process takes into account previous assignments
> > to avoid redundant redeployments.
> > So, in the described case, ServiceA won't be moved from node1 to node2.
> > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda  wrote:
> > >
> > > Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and rolling out these
> > new
> > > capabilities.
> > >
> > > Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new architecture
> > avoid
> > > a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For instance,
> let's
> > > say I have ServiceA running node1, then node2 joins and I don't want
> the
> > > service to be redeployed to any other node.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584#ServiceGridredesign.Phase1.Implementationdetails.-Topologychange
> > >
> > > --
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM Vyacheslav Daradur  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki:
> > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
> > > >
> > > > Thank you!
> > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you please
> > > > create a
> > > > > page?
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur  >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I prepared a description of the implemented solution and attached
> > it
> > > > > > to the issue [1].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This should help during a review. Should I post the document into
> > wiki
> > > > or
> > > > > > IEP?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] [2],
> > please?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Igniters! Good news!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, we need additional review from other Ignite experts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could someone step in and do the review?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pavel, could you assist?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name
> > instead
> > > > of
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > implementation?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think, it shouldn't be a problem.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes
> > sense
> > > > to me
> > > > > > > > > for Java part.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But how it should work for .NET client?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > nsamelc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized
> > > > service's
> > > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > > > by service's class name and properties map in
> > > > > > {ServiceConfiguration}.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The task describes that we should use
> > > > > > > > > > > {String className} + {Map properties}
> > instead
> > > > > > {Service
> > > > > > > > > > > srvc}.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. What about public methods?
> > > > > > > > > > > I suggest to mark them as deprecated 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Magda]

Vyacheslav,

What are the cases when the service can be redeployed? Affinity, failure,
etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the wiki and then
our tech writers will get everything documented.

--
Denis

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> Denis,
>
> Services reassignment process takes into account previous assignments
> to avoid redundant redeployments.
> So, in the described case, ServiceA won't be moved from node1 to node2.
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> > Vyacheslav,
> >
> > First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and rolling out these
> new
> > capabilities.
> >
> > Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new architecture
> avoid
> > a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For instance, let's
> > say I have ServiceA running node1, then node2 joins and I don't want the
> > service to be redeployed to any other node.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584#ServiceGridredesign.Phase1.Implementationdetails.-Topologychange
> >
> > --
> > Denis
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki:
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you please
> > > create a
> > > > page?
> > > >
> > > > ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > > >
> > > > > I prepared a description of the implemented solution and attached
> it
> > > > > to the issue [1].
> > > > >
> > > > > This should help during a review. Should I post the document into
> wiki
> > > or
> > > > > IEP?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] [2],
> please?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Igniters! Good news!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, we need additional review from other Ignite experts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could someone step in and do the review?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel, could you assist?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name
> instead
> > > of
> > > > > its
> > > > > > > implementation?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think, it shouldn't be a problem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes
> sense
> > > to me
> > > > > > > > for Java part.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But how it should work for .NET client?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > nsamelc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized
> > > service's
> > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > > by service's class name and properties map in
> > > > > {ServiceConfiguration}.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The task describes that we should use
> > > > > > > > > > {String className} + {Map properties}
> instead
> > > > > {Service
> > > > > > > > > > srvc}.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. What about public methods?
> > > > > > > > > > I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name
> of
> > > > > provided
> > > > > > > > > > instance.
> > > > > > > > > > Also to add deploying methods with new parameters:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > @Deprecated
> > > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> > > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > > > name, Service svc)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> > > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Denis,

Services reassignment process takes into account previous assignments
to avoid redundant redeployments.
So, in the described case, ServiceA won't be moved from node1 to node2.
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda  wrote:
>
> Vyacheslav,
>
> First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and rolling out these new
> capabilities.
>
> Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new architecture avoid
> a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For instance, let's
> say I have ServiceA running node1, then node2 joins and I don't want the
> service to be redeployed to any other node.
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584#ServiceGridredesign.Phase1.Implementationdetails.-Topologychange
>
> --
> Denis
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
> >
> > Thank you!
> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you please
> > create a
> > > page?
> > >
> > > ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > >
> > > > I prepared a description of the implemented solution and attached it
> > > > to the issue [1].
> > > >
> > > > This should help during a review. Should I post the document into wiki
> > or
> > > > IEP?
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] [2], please?
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Igniters! Good news!
> > > > >
> > > > > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, we need additional review from other Ignite experts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2].
> > > > >
> > > > > Could someone step in and do the review?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pavel, could you assist?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name instead
> > of
> > > > its
> > > > > > implementation?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think, it shouldn't be a problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes sense
> > to me
> > > > > > > for Java part.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But how it should work for .NET client?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > nsamelc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized
> > service's
> > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > by service's class name and properties map in
> > > > {ServiceConfiguration}.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The task describes that we should use
> > > > > > > > > {String className} + {Map properties} instead
> > > > {Service
> > > > > > > > > srvc}.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. What about public methods?
> > > > > > > > > I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name of
> > > > provided
> > > > > > > > > instance.
> > > > > > > > > Also to add deploying methods with new parameters:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > @Deprecated
> > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > > name, Service svc)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think this makes sense, but I would like other committers to
> > > > confirm.
> > > > > > > > Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. Is {Map properties} parameter mandatory
> > when
> > > > > > > deploying a
> > > > > > > > > service?
> > > > > > > > > Is it make sense to add deploying methods without it? For
> > > > example:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Magda]

Vyacheslav,

First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and rolling out these new
capabilities.

Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new architecture avoid
a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For instance, let's
say I have ServiceA running node1, then node2 joins and I don't want the
service to be redeployed to any other node.

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584#ServiceGridredesign.Phase1.Implementationdetails.-Topologychange

--
Denis

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
>
> Thank you!
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you please
> create a
> > page?
> >
> > ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur :
> >
> > > I prepared a description of the implemented solution and attached it
> > > to the issue [1].
> > >
> > > This should help during a review. Should I post the document into wiki
> or
> > > IEP?
> > >
> > > I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] [2], please?
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Igniters! Good news!
> > > >
> > > > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now.
> > > >
> > > > Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation.
> > > >
> > > > However, we need additional review from other Ignite experts.
> > > >
> > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2].
> > > >
> > > > Could someone step in and do the review?
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Pavel, could you assist?
> > > > >
> > > > > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name instead
> of
> > > its
> > > > > implementation?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think, it shouldn't be a problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes sense
> to me
> > > > > > for Java part.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But how it should work for .NET client?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > nsamelc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized
> service's
> > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > by service's class name and properties map in
> > > {ServiceConfiguration}.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The task describes that we should use
> > > > > > > > {String className} + {Map properties} instead
> > > {Service
> > > > > > > > srvc}.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. What about public methods?
> > > > > > > > I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name of
> > > provided
> > > > > > > > instance.
> > > > > > > > Also to add deploying methods with new parameters:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @Deprecated
> > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > prj,
> > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > name, Service svc)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > prj,
> > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think this makes sense, but I would like other committers to
> > > confirm.
> > > > > > > Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. Is {Map properties} parameter mandatory
> when
> > > > > > deploying a
> > > > > > > > service?
> > > > > > > > Is it make sense to add deploying methods without it? For
> > > example:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > prj,
> > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > prj,
> > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would always ask the user to pass the property map, but would
> > > allow it
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > be null.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Yakov Zhdanov]

Nikolay, let me take a look at the changes. I will do it possibly over
weekend.

Thanks!

--Yakov

2018-11-08 17:20 GMT+03:00 Nikolay Izhikov :

> Hello, Igniters.
>
> Please, respond if anyone wish to do the additional review of this
> improvement.
>
> I think it's ready to be merged, so if noone has time to review, I can
> merge the patch.
>
> ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 18:04 Vyacheslav Daradur daradu...@gmail.com:
>
> > Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> action?pageId=95654584
> >
> > Thank you!
> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you please
> > create a
> > > page?
> > >
> > > ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > >
> > > > I prepared a description of the implemented solution and attached it
> > > > to the issue [1].
> > > >
> > > > This should help during a review. Should I post the document into
> wiki
> > or
> > > > IEP?
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] [2], please?
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Igniters! Good news!
> > > > >
> > > > > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, we need additional review from other Ignite experts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2].
> > > > >
> > > > > Could someone step in and do the review?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pavel, could you assist?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name instead
> > of
> > > > its
> > > > > > implementation?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think, it shouldn't be a problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes sense
> > to me
> > > > > > > for Java part.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But how it should work for .NET client?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > nsamelc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized
> > service's
> > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > by service's class name and properties map in
> > > > {ServiceConfiguration}.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The task describes that we should use
> > > > > > > > > {String className} + {Map properties}
> instead
> > > > {Service
> > > > > > > > > srvc}.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. What about public methods?
> > > > > > > > > I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name of
> > > > provided
> > > > > > > > > instance.
> > > > > > > > > Also to add deploying methods with new parameters:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > @Deprecated
> > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > > name, Service svc)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think this makes sense, but I would like other committers
> to
> > > > confirm.
> > > > > > > > Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. Is {Map properties} parameter mandatory
> > when
> > > > > > > deploying a
> > > > > > > > > service?
> > > > > > > > > Is it make sense to add deploying methods without it? For
> > > > example:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > > prj,
> > > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would always ask the user to pass the property map, but
> would
> > > > allow it
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > be null.
> > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Nikolay Izhikov]

Hello, Igniters.

Please, respond if anyone wish to do the additional review of this
improvement.

I think it's ready to be merged, so if noone has time to review, I can
merge the patch.

ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 18:04 Vyacheslav Daradur daradu...@gmail.com:

> Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584
>
> Thank you!
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you please
> create a
> > page?
> >
> > ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur :
> >
> > > I prepared a description of the implemented solution and attached it
> > > to the issue [1].
> > >
> > > This should help during a review. Should I post the document into wiki
> or
> > > IEP?
> > >
> > > I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] [2], please?
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Igniters! Good news!
> > > >
> > > > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now.
> > > >
> > > > Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation.
> > > >
> > > > However, we need additional review from other Ignite experts.
> > > >
> > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2].
> > > >
> > > > Could someone step in and do the review?
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Pavel, could you assist?
> > > > >
> > > > > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name instead
> of
> > > its
> > > > > implementation?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think, it shouldn't be a problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes sense
> to me
> > > > > > for Java part.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But how it should work for .NET client?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > nsamelc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized
> service's
> > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > by service's class name and properties map in
> > > {ServiceConfiguration}.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The task describes that we should use
> > > > > > > > {String className} + {Map properties} instead
> > > {Service
> > > > > > > > srvc}.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. What about public methods?
> > > > > > > > I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name of
> > > provided
> > > > > > > > instance.
> > > > > > > > Also to add deploying methods with new parameters:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @Deprecated
> > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > prj,
> > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > name, Service svc)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > prj,
> > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think this makes sense, but I would like other committers to
> > > confirm.
> > > > > > > Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. Is {Map properties} parameter mandatory
> when
> > > > > > deploying a
> > > > > > > > service?
> > > > > > > > Is it make sense to add deploying methods without it? For
> > > example:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > prj,
> > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture
> deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > > prj,
> > > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would always ask the user to pass the property map, but would
> > > allow it
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > be null.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584

Thank you!
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov  wrote:
>
> Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you please create a
> page?
>
> ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur :
>
> > I prepared a description of the implemented solution and attached it
> > to the issue [1].
> >
> > This should help during a review. Should I post the document into wiki or
> > IEP?
> >
> > I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] [2], please?
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Igniters! Good news!
> > >
> > > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now.
> > >
> > > Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation.
> > >
> > > However, we need additional review from other Ignite experts.
> > >
> > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2].
> > >
> > > Could someone step in and do the review?
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pavel, could you assist?
> > > >
> > > > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name instead of
> > its
> > > > implementation?
> > > >
> > > > I think, it shouldn't be a problem.
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes sense to me
> > > > > for Java part.
> > > > >
> > > > > But how it should work for .NET client?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > nsamelc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized service's
> > > > > instance
> > > > > > > by service's class name and properties map in
> > {ServiceConfiguration}.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The task describes that we should use
> > > > > > > {String className} + {Map properties} instead
> > {Service
> > > > > > > srvc}.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. What about public methods?
> > > > > > > I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name of
> > provided
> > > > > > > instance.
> > > > > > > Also to add deploying methods with new parameters:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @Deprecated
> > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > prj,
> > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > name, Service svc)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > prj,
> > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think this makes sense, but I would like other committers to
> > confirm.
> > > > > > Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Is {Map properties} parameter mandatory when
> > > > > deploying a
> > > > > > > service?
> > > > > > > Is it make sense to add deploying methods without it? For
> > example:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > prj,
> > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> > prj,
> > > > > > > String
> > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would always ask the user to pass the property map, but would
> > allow it
> > > > > to
> > > > > > be null.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Dmitriy Pavlov]

Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you please create a
page?

ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur :

> I prepared a description of the implemented solution and attached it
> to the issue [1].
>
> This should help during a review. Should I post the document into wiki or
> IEP?
>
> I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] [2], please?
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Igniters! Good news!
> >
> > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now.
> >
> > Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation.
> >
> > However, we need additional review from other Ignite experts.
> >
> > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2].
> >
> > Could someone step in and do the review?
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Pavel, could you assist?
> > >
> > > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name instead of
> its
> > > implementation?
> > >
> > > I think, it shouldn't be a problem.
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes sense to me
> > > > for Java part.
> > > >
> > > > But how it should work for .NET client?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> nsamelc...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized service's
> > > > instance
> > > > > > by service's class name and properties map in
> {ServiceConfiguration}.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The task describes that we should use
> > > > > > {String className} + {Map properties} instead
> {Service
> > > > > > srvc}.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. What about public methods?
> > > > > > I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name of
> provided
> > > > > > instance.
> > > > > > Also to add deploying methods with new parameters:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @Deprecated
> > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> prj,
> > > > > > String
> > > > > > name, Service svc)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> prj,
> > > > > > String
> > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this makes sense, but I would like other committers to
> confirm.
> > > > > Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment here.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Is {Map properties} parameter mandatory when
> > > > deploying a
> > > > > > service?
> > > > > > Is it make sense to add deploying methods without it? For
> example:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> prj,
> > > > > > String
> > > > > > name, String srvcClsName)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup
> prj,
> > > > > > String
> > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would always ask the user to pass the property map, but would
> allow it
> > > > to
> > > > > be null.
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

I prepared a description of the implemented solution and attached it
to the issue [1].

This should help during a review. Should I post the document into wiki or IEP?

I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] [2], please?

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
>
> Hi, Igniters! Good news!
>
> Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now.
>
> Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation.
>
> However, we need additional review from other Ignite experts.
>
> Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2].
>
> Could someone step in and do the review?
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov  
> wrote:
> >
> > Pavel, could you assist?
> >
> > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name instead of its
> > implementation?
> >
> > I think, it shouldn't be a problem.
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
> >
> > > I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes sense to me
> > > for Java part.
> > >
> > > But how it should work for .NET client?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized service's
> > > instance
> > > > > by service's class name and properties map in {ServiceConfiguration}.
> > > > >
> > > > > The task describes that we should use
> > > > > {String className} + {Map properties} instead {Service
> > > > > srvc}.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. What about public methods?
> > > > > I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name of provided
> > > > > instance.
> > > > > Also to add deploying methods with new parameters:
> > > > >
> > > > > @Deprecated
> > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > > > > String
> > > > > name, Service svc)
> > > > >
> > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > > > > String
> > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think this makes sense, but I would like other committers to confirm.
> > > > Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment here.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2. Is {Map properties} parameter mandatory when
> > > deploying a
> > > > > service?
> > > > > Is it make sense to add deploying methods without it? For example:
> > > > >
> > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > > > > String
> > > > > name, String srvcClsName)
> > > > >
> > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > > > > String
> > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would always ask the user to pass the property map, but would allow it
> > > to
> > > > be null.
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Hi, Igniters! Good news!

Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now.

Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation.

However, we need additional review from other Ignite experts.

Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2].

Could someone step in and do the review?

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov  wrote:
>
> Pavel, could you assist?
>
> Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name instead of its
> implementation?
>
> I think, it shouldn't be a problem.
>
> Denis
>
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
>
> > I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes sense to me
> > for Java part.
> >
> > But how it should work for .NET client?
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > >
> > > > I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized service's
> > instance
> > > > by service's class name and properties map in {ServiceConfiguration}.
> > > >
> > > > The task describes that we should use
> > > > {String className} + {Map properties} instead {Service
> > > > srvc}.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> > > >
> > > > 1. What about public methods?
> > > > I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name of provided
> > > > instance.
> > > > Also to add deploying methods with new parameters:
> > > >
> > > > @Deprecated
> > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > > > String
> > > > name, Service svc)
> > > >
> > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > > > String
> > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think this makes sense, but I would like other committers to confirm.
> > > Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment here.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2. Is {Map properties} parameter mandatory when
> > deploying a
> > > > service?
> > > > Is it make sense to add deploying methods without it? For example:
> > > >
> > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > > > String
> > > > name, String srvcClsName)
> > > >
> > > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > > > String
> > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I would always ask the user to pass the property map, but would allow it
> > to
> > > be null.
> > >
> > > D.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

Pavel, could you assist?

Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name instead of its
implementation?

I think, it shouldn't be a problem.

Denis

On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:

> I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes sense to me
> for Java part.
>
> But how it should work for .NET client?
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, Igniters.
> > >
> > > I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized service's
> instance
> > > by service's class name and properties map in {ServiceConfiguration}.
> > >
> > > The task describes that we should use
> > > {String className} + {Map properties} instead {Service
> > > srvc}.
> > >
> > > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> > >
> > > 1. What about public methods?
> > > I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name of provided
> > > instance.
> > > Also to add deploying methods with new parameters:
> > >
> > > @Deprecated
> > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > > String
> > > name, Service svc)
> > >
> > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > > String
> > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > >
> >
> > I think this makes sense, but I would like other committers to confirm.
> > Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment here.
> >
> >
> > > 2. Is {Map properties} parameter mandatory when
> deploying a
> > > service?
> > > Is it make sense to add deploying methods without it? For example:
> > >
> > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > > String
> > > name, String srvcClsName)
> > >
> > > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > > String
> > > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> > >
> >
> > I would always ask the user to pass the property map, but would allow it
> to
> > be null.
> >
> > D.
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes sense to me
for Java part.

But how it should work for .NET client?

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Igniters.
> >
> > I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized service's instance
> > by service's class name and properties map in {ServiceConfiguration}.
> >
> > The task describes that we should use
> > {String className} + {Map properties} instead {Service
> > srvc}.
> >
> > I'd like to clarify the following questions:
> >
> > 1. What about public methods?
> > I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name of provided
> > instance.
> > Also to add deploying methods with new parameters:
> >
> > @Deprecated
> > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > String
> > name, Service svc)
> >
> > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > String
> > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> >
>
> I think this makes sense, but I would like other committers to confirm.
> Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment here.
>
>
> > 2. Is {Map properties} parameter mandatory when deploying a
> > service?
> > Is it make sense to add deploying methods without it? For example:
> >
> > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > String
> > name, String srvcClsName)
> >
> > public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> > String
> > name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
> >
>
> I would always ask the user to pass the property map, but would allow it to
> be null.
>
> D.



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev 
wrote:

> Hello, Igniters.
>
> I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized service's instance
> by service's class name and properties map in {ServiceConfiguration}.
>
> The task describes that we should use
> {String className} + {Map properties} instead {Service
> srvc}.
>
> I'd like to clarify the following questions:
>
> 1. What about public methods?
> I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name of provided
> instance.
> Also to add deploying methods with new parameters:
>
> @Deprecated
> public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> String
> name, Service svc)
>
> public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> String
> name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
>

I think this makes sense, but I would like other committers to confirm.
Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment here.


> 2. Is {Map properties} parameter mandatory when deploying a
> service?
> Is it make sense to add deploying methods without it? For example:
>
> public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> String
> name, String srvcClsName)
>
> public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj,
> String
> name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)
>

I would always ask the user to pass the property map, but would allow it to
be null.

D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Nikita Amelchev]

Hello, Igniters.

I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized service's instance
by service's class name and properties map in {ServiceConfiguration}.

The task describes that we should use
{String className} + {Map properties} instead {Service
srvc}.

I'd like to clarify the following questions:

1. What about public methods?
I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name of provided
instance.
Also to add deploying methods with new parameters:

@Deprecated
public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj, String
name, Service svc)

public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj, String
name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)

2. Is {Map properties} parameter mandatory when deploying a
service?
Is it make sense to add deploying methods without it? For example:

public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj, String
name, String srvcClsName)

public IgniteInternalFuture deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup prj, String
name, String srvcClsName, Map prop)

Thoughts?

1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8366

2018-08-09 18:21 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan :

> Versions will complicate the implementation and will not be done in 2.7. I
> would vote for the hot redeployment for now and add versions in 2.8.
>
> D.
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
>
> > Real case is A/B testing.
> > When you want to allow new service usage only to 0.1% of users.
> > And only when you sure it works then replace all v1 with v2.
> >
> > So, I vote for versions.
> > Let's do this in maven way (exact version, range, RELEASE or LATEST)
> >
> > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 17:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> >
> > > Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > For the case you are describing, I would take the same approach as we
> > have
> > > for compute tasks. Keep the older version around only as long as there
> > are
> > > active requests and then undeploy it automatically. No need to allow it
> > > linger around indefinitely.
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dmitry, it's not only about hot redeployment.
> > > >
> > > > Denis, I don't see such use case, because of the answer in a
> different
> > > > front.
> > > >
> > > > It relates to the best practices of SOA versioning [1] [2].
> > > >
> > > > For example:
> > > > * we have a cluster with service [name="MySevice", v="1"];
> > > > * I want to upgrade service to [name="MySevice", v="2"], but I have
> > > > clients which are using [name="MySevice", v="1"] and can't stop
> > > > processing;
> > > > * With service versioning, we are able to deploy new service near
> > > > existing service, then switch clients and undeploy outdated service.
> > > >
> > > > My only question is: are we going to implement such a feature [3] or
> > > > not? Maybe PMC don't see such feature in Service Grid roadmap.
> > > > IMO it's a good feature for a microservices platform.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://www.thbs.com/thbs-insights/soa-service-
> > > > versioning-best-practices
> > > > [2] https://www.ibm.com/blogs/bluemix/2017/08/rapidly-
> > > > developing-applications-part-6-exposing-and-versioning-apis/
> > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6069
> > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:48 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought this was about automatic service redeployment, which
> should
> > > > have
> > > > > been a part of the current IEP, no? Can you please clarify?
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It looks like an overcomplication to me.
> > > > > > Could you describe a case, that can be solved using versioning,
> but
> > > not
> > > > > > naming?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:56, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis, it's not about different users services implementations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A real use case is user's services API versioning which is
> being
> > > used
> > > > > > > widely t in SOAP/REST microservices infrastructure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In my opinion, it is about services with the same name and the
> > same
> > > > > > > full class name, but different classes versions for example in
> > > > > > > different classloaders.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think, that we really need this feature.
> > > > > > > > It seems to me, that if you want to use a different
> > > implementation
> > > > of a
> > > > > > > > service, you can assign a different name to it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What do you 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

Versions will complicate the implementation and will not be done in 2.7. I
would vote for the hot redeployment for now and add versions in 2.8.

D.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:

> Real case is A/B testing.
> When you want to allow new service usage only to 0.1% of users.
> And only when you sure it works then replace all v1 with v2.
>
> So, I vote for versions.
> Let's do this in maven way (exact version, range, RELEASE or LATEST)
>
> чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 17:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
>
> > Vyacheslav,
> >
> > For the case you are describing, I would take the same approach as we
> have
> > for compute tasks. Keep the older version around only as long as there
> are
> > active requests and then undeploy it automatically. No need to allow it
> > linger around indefinitely.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dmitry, it's not only about hot redeployment.
> > >
> > > Denis, I don't see such use case, because of the answer in a different
> > > front.
> > >
> > > It relates to the best practices of SOA versioning [1] [2].
> > >
> > > For example:
> > > * we have a cluster with service [name="MySevice", v="1"];
> > > * I want to upgrade service to [name="MySevice", v="2"], but I have
> > > clients which are using [name="MySevice", v="1"] and can't stop
> > > processing;
> > > * With service versioning, we are able to deploy new service near
> > > existing service, then switch clients and undeploy outdated service.
> > >
> > > My only question is: are we going to implement such a feature [3] or
> > > not? Maybe PMC don't see such feature in Service Grid roadmap.
> > > IMO it's a good feature for a microservices platform.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.thbs.com/thbs-insights/soa-service-
> > > versioning-best-practices
> > > [2] https://www.ibm.com/blogs/bluemix/2017/08/rapidly-
> > > developing-applications-part-6-exposing-and-versioning-apis/
> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6069
> > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:48 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I thought this was about automatic service redeployment, which should
> > > have
> > > > been a part of the current IEP, no? Can you please clarify?
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks like an overcomplication to me.
> > > > > Could you describe a case, that can be solved using versioning, but
> > not
> > > > > naming?
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:56, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Denis, it's not about different users services implementations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A real use case is user's services API versioning which is being
> > used
> > > > > > widely t in SOAP/REST microservices infrastructure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In my opinion, it is about services with the same name and the
> same
> > > > > > full class name, but different classes versions for example in
> > > > > > different classloaders.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think, that we really need this feature.
> > > > > > > It seems to me, that if you want to use a different
> > implementation
> > > of a
> > > > > > > service, you can assign a different name to it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > dsetrak...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1].
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement
> > this
> > > > > > > > > feature we should build a base in the first iteration of
> > IEP-17
> > > > > > > > > because of change messages formats.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to
> > > host
> > > > > > > > > services with the same name, but with different
> > class/version,
> > > we
> > > > > > > > > should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s
> lifecycle
> > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > of service’s name.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My only concern would be on the usability side. Is user going
> > to
> > > have
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best Regards, 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Anton Vinogradov]

Real case is A/B testing.
When you want to allow new service usage only to 0.1% of users.
And only when you sure it works then replace all v1 with v2.

So, I vote for versions.
Let's do this in maven way (exact version, range, RELEASE or LATEST)

чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 17:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan :

> Vyacheslav,
>
> For the case you are describing, I would take the same approach as we have
> for compute tasks. Keep the older version around only as long as there are
> active requests and then undeploy it automatically. No need to allow it
> linger around indefinitely.
>
> D.
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > Dmitry, it's not only about hot redeployment.
> >
> > Denis, I don't see such use case, because of the answer in a different
> > front.
> >
> > It relates to the best practices of SOA versioning [1] [2].
> >
> > For example:
> > * we have a cluster with service [name="MySevice", v="1"];
> > * I want to upgrade service to [name="MySevice", v="2"], but I have
> > clients which are using [name="MySevice", v="1"] and can't stop
> > processing;
> > * With service versioning, we are able to deploy new service near
> > existing service, then switch clients and undeploy outdated service.
> >
> > My only question is: are we going to implement such a feature [3] or
> > not? Maybe PMC don't see such feature in Service Grid roadmap.
> > IMO it's a good feature for a microservices platform.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://www.thbs.com/thbs-insights/soa-service-
> > versioning-best-practices
> > [2] https://www.ibm.com/blogs/bluemix/2017/08/rapidly-
> > developing-applications-part-6-exposing-and-versioning-apis/
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6069
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:48 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I thought this was about automatic service redeployment, which should
> > have
> > > been a part of the current IEP, no? Can you please clarify?
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > >
> > > > It looks like an overcomplication to me.
> > > > Could you describe a case, that can be solved using versioning, but
> not
> > > > naming?
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:56, Vyacheslav Daradur  >:
> > > >
> > > > > Denis, it's not about different users services implementations.
> > > > >
> > > > > A real use case is user's services API versioning which is being
> used
> > > > > widely t in SOAP/REST microservices infrastructure.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my opinion, it is about services with the same name and the same
> > > > > full class name, but different classes versions for example in
> > > > > different classloaders.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think, that we really need this feature.
> > > > > > It seems to me, that if you want to use a different
> implementation
> > of a
> > > > > > service, you can assign a different name to it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > dsetrak...@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement
> this
> > > > > > > > feature we should build a base in the first iteration of
> IEP-17
> > > > > > > > because of change messages formats.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to
> > host
> > > > > > > > services with the same name, but with different
> class/version,
> > we
> > > > > > > > should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s lifecycle
> > > > instead
> > > > > > > > of service’s name.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My only concern would be on the usability side. Is user going
> to
> > have
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

Vyacheslav,

For the case you are describing, I would take the same approach as we have
for compute tasks. Keep the older version around only as long as there are
active requests and then undeploy it automatically. No need to allow it
linger around indefinitely.

D.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> Dmitry, it's not only about hot redeployment.
>
> Denis, I don't see such use case, because of the answer in a different
> front.
>
> It relates to the best practices of SOA versioning [1] [2].
>
> For example:
> * we have a cluster with service [name="MySevice", v="1"];
> * I want to upgrade service to [name="MySevice", v="2"], but I have
> clients which are using [name="MySevice", v="1"] and can't stop
> processing;
> * With service versioning, we are able to deploy new service near
> existing service, then switch clients and undeploy outdated service.
>
> My only question is: are we going to implement such a feature [3] or
> not? Maybe PMC don't see such feature in Service Grid roadmap.
> IMO it's a good feature for a microservices platform.
>
>
> [1] https://www.thbs.com/thbs-insights/soa-service-
> versioning-best-practices
> [2] https://www.ibm.com/blogs/bluemix/2017/08/rapidly-
> developing-applications-part-6-exposing-and-versioning-apis/
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6069
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:48 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> wrote:
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > I thought this was about automatic service redeployment, which should
> have
> > been a part of the current IEP, no? Can you please clarify?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Denis Mekhanikov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > It looks like an overcomplication to me.
> > > Could you describe a case, that can be solved using versioning, but not
> > > naming?
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:56, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > >
> > > > Denis, it's not about different users services implementations.
> > > >
> > > > A real use case is user's services API versioning which is being used
> > > > widely t in SOAP/REST microservices infrastructure.
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion, it is about services with the same name and the same
> > > > full class name, but different classes versions for example in
> > > > different classloaders.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think, that we really need this feature.
> > > > > It seems to me, that if you want to use a different implementation
> of a
> > > > > service, you can assign a different name to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement this
> > > > > > > feature we should build a base in the first iteration of IEP-17
> > > > > > > because of change messages formats.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to
> host
> > > > > > > services with the same name, but with different class/version,
> we
> > > > > > > should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s lifecycle
> > > instead
> > > > > > > of service’s name.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My only concern would be on the usability side. Is user going to
> have
> > > > to
> > > > > > deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > D.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Dmitry, it's not only about hot redeployment.

Denis, I don't see such use case, because of the answer in a different front.

It relates to the best practices of SOA versioning [1] [2].

For example:
* we have a cluster with service [name="MySevice", v="1"];
* I want to upgrade service to [name="MySevice", v="2"], but I have
clients which are using [name="MySevice", v="1"] and can't stop
processing;
* With service versioning, we are able to deploy new service near
existing service, then switch clients and undeploy outdated service.

My only question is: are we going to implement such a feature [3] or
not? Maybe PMC don't see such feature in Service Grid roadmap.
IMO it's a good feature for a microservices platform.


[1] https://www.thbs.com/thbs-insights/soa-service-versioning-best-practices
[2] 
https://www.ibm.com/blogs/bluemix/2017/08/rapidly-developing-applications-part-6-exposing-and-versioning-apis/
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6069
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:48 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan  wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> I thought this was about automatic service redeployment, which should have
> been a part of the current IEP, no? Can you please clarify?
>
> D.
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Denis Mekhanikov 
> wrote:
>
> > Vyacheslav,
> >
> > It looks like an overcomplication to me.
> > Could you describe a case, that can be solved using versioning, but not
> > naming?
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:56, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> >
> > > Denis, it's not about different users services implementations.
> > >
> > > A real use case is user's services API versioning which is being used
> > > widely t in SOAP/REST microservices infrastructure.
> > >
> > > In my opinion, it is about services with the same name and the same
> > > full class name, but different classes versions for example in
> > > different classloaders.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 PM Denis Mekhanikov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't think, that we really need this feature.
> > > > It seems to me, that if you want to use a different implementation of a
> > > > service, you can assign a different name to it.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement this
> > > > > > feature we should build a base in the first iteration of IEP-17
> > > > > > because of change messages formats.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to host
> > > > > > services with the same name, but with different class/version, we
> > > > > > should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s lifecycle
> > instead
> > > > > > of service’s name.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My only concern would be on the usability side. Is user going to have
> > > to
> > > > > deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally?
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > >
> >



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

Guys,

I thought this was about automatic service redeployment, which should have
been a part of the current IEP, no? Can you please clarify?

D.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Denis Mekhanikov 
wrote:

> Vyacheslav,
>
> It looks like an overcomplication to me.
> Could you describe a case, that can be solved using versioning, but not
> naming?
>
> Denis
>
> чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:56, Vyacheslav Daradur :
>
> > Denis, it's not about different users services implementations.
> >
> > A real use case is user's services API versioning which is being used
> > widely t in SOAP/REST microservices infrastructure.
> >
> > In my opinion, it is about services with the same name and the same
> > full class name, but different classes versions for example in
> > different classloaders.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 PM Denis Mekhanikov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think, that we really need this feature.
> > > It seems to me, that if you want to use a different implementation of a
> > > service, you can assign a different name to it.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > >
> > > > > I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1].
> > > > >
> > > > > It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement this
> > > > > feature we should build a base in the first iteration of IEP-17
> > > > > because of change messages formats.
> > > > >
> > > > > In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to host
> > > > > services with the same name, but with different class/version, we
> > > > > should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s lifecycle
> instead
> > > > > of service’s name.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > My only concern would be on the usability side. Is user going to have
> > to
> > > > deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally?
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

Vyacheslav,

It looks like an overcomplication to me.
Could you describe a case, that can be solved using versioning, but not
naming?

Denis

чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:56, Vyacheslav Daradur :

> Denis, it's not about different users services implementations.
>
> A real use case is user's services API versioning which is being used
> widely t in SOAP/REST microservices infrastructure.
>
> In my opinion, it is about services with the same name and the same
> full class name, but different classes versions for example in
> different classloaders.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 PM Denis Mekhanikov 
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think, that we really need this feature.
> > It seems to me, that if you want to use a different implementation of a
> > service, you can assign a different name to it.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > >
> > > > I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1].
> > > >
> > > > It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement this
> > > > feature we should build a base in the first iteration of IEP-17
> > > > because of change messages formats.
> > > >
> > > > In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to host
> > > > services with the same name, but with different class/version, we
> > > > should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s lifecycle instead
> > > > of service’s name.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > >
> > > My only concern would be on the usability side. Is user going to have
> to
> > > deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally?
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Denis, it's not about different users services implementations.

A real use case is user's services API versioning which is being used
widely t in SOAP/REST microservices infrastructure.

In my opinion, it is about services with the same name and the same
full class name, but different classes versions for example in
different classloaders.


On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 PM Denis Mekhanikov  wrote:
>
> I don't think, that we really need this feature.
> It seems to me, that if you want to use a different implementation of a
> service, you can assign a different name to it.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Denis
>
> чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan :
>
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Igniters!
> > >
> > > I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1].
> > >
> > > It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement this
> > > feature we should build a base in the first iteration of IEP-17
> > > because of change messages formats.
> > >
> > > In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to host
> > > services with the same name, but with different class/version, we
> > > should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s lifecycle instead
> > > of service’s name.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> >
> > My only concern would be on the usability side. Is user going to have to
> > deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally?
> >
> > D.
> >



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

I don't think, that we really need this feature.
It seems to me, that if you want to use a different implementation of a
service, you can assign a different name to it.

What do you think?

Denis

чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan :

> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Igniters!
> >
> > I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1].
> >
> > It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement this
> > feature we should build a base in the first iteration of IEP-17
> > because of change messages formats.
> >
> > In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to host
> > services with the same name, but with different class/version, we
> > should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s lifecycle instead
> > of service’s name.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> My only concern would be on the usability side. Is user going to have to
> deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally?
>
> D.
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

We won't change API, user will continue to use service's name to manage it.

Some kind of service id will be used internally, this allow us to
distinguish services with the same name, but different version.


On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:32 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Igniters!
> >
> > I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1].
> >
> > It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement this
> > feature we should build a base in the first iteration of IEP-17
> > because of change messages formats.
> >
> > In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to host
> > services with the same name, but with different class/version, we
> > should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s lifecycle instead
> > of service’s name.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> My only concern would be on the usability side. Is user going to have to
> deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally?
>
> D.



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> Hi, Igniters!
>
> I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1].
>
> It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement this
> feature we should build a base in the first iteration of IEP-17
> because of change messages formats.
>
> In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to host
> services with the same name, but with different class/version, we
> should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s lifecycle instead
> of service’s name.
>
> Thoughts?
>

My only concern would be on the usability side. Is user going to have to
deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally?

D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Hi, Igniters!

I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1].

It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement this
feature we should build a base in the first iteration of IEP-17
because of change messages formats.

In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to host
services with the same name, but with different class/version, we
should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s lifecycle instead
of service’s name.

Thoughts?


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6069
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 3:51 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan  wrote:
>
> Anton, clients could be remote, not local. However, even if I agreed with
> you, we cannot remove the current functionality from the product.
>
> As suggested, by default services are deployed only on server nodes. If a
> user wants to involve client nodes, then it should be done by specifying a
> node filter. This is how the system works today. Let's not change it for no
> good reason.
>
> D.
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:31 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:
>
> > Denis,
> >
> > Main features of Ignite Cache are availability and throughput.
> >
> > I'd like to refactor Serviсe Grid to be the same.
> > Main feature should be guarantee of availability and throughput (instance
> > count).
> >
> > Client should ask grid to execute the service, that's all. No matter how
> > grid will do this.
> > This should be like cache 'put' or 'get' call.
> >
> > In case you want to execute something locally you should just implement it
> > inside your application rather than deploy it to Ignite Cluster.
> > There are absolutely no reason to mix local services and Service Grid.
> >
> > P.s. As for me, all "local" features should be deprecated, since we're
> > distributed.
> >
> > чт, 26 июл. 2018 г. в 21:13, Denis Mekhanikov :
> >
> > > Anton,
> > >
> > > I believe, there are cases, when people want to have node singleton
> > > services, that are deployed to clients, as well as to all other nodes.
> > > And currently clients can execute compute jobs, issued by other clients,
> > > and services are not very different from them.
> > > Clients may store data and run code. We shouldn't consider them as
> > > "end-user nodes". Only thin clients should be run by end users.
> > >
> > > But I agree, that we shouldn't encourage people to use services this way.
> > > So, if it doesn't complicate the implementation too much, then a warning
> > in
> > > log will be enough, I think.
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > чт, 26 июл. 2018 г. в 19:56, Anton Vinogradov :
> > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that it's a good idea to host services on client nodes.
> > > > Client topology is not stable enough, and I don't see how to guarantee
> > > > availability of such services.
> > > > We'll have huge problems to guarantee availability in case of blinking
> > > > clients.
> > > >
> > > > Also, taking into account that ignite cluster can have more that one
> > user
> > > > it looks odd that one user able to start service at another user's
> > > hardware
> > > > (bitcoin miners can be disagree with me).
> > > >
> > > > In case you want to use nodes only to host services - all you need is
> > to
> > > > filter them from cache affinity functions.
> > > >
> > > > I propose to implement Services pretty close to Cache implementation.
> > > > It's a bad idea to reinvent the weel there.
> > > > Let's just analyse Cache's code and do the same for services with same
> > > > guarantee.
> > > >
> > > > ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 21:58, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > > >
> > > > > Denis, long service initialization isn't a big problem for us.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is hung initialization, that means the service deployment
> > > > > will never complete.
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:08 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think, that this timeout shouldn't be mandatory, and it should be
> > > > > > disabled by default.
> > > > > > We should be ready for long service initialization. So, it
> > shouldn't
> > > be
> > > > > > done in any crucial threads like discovery or exchange.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 15:59, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > FYI, I've filled the tickets:
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9075
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9076
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:54 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think such timeout should be determined on per-service
> > level.
> > > > > Can we
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy
> > > > > method?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agree, per ServiceConfiguration level is more flexible
> > solution.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is a 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

Anton, clients could be remote, not local. However, even if I agreed with
you, we cannot remove the current functionality from the product.

As suggested, by default services are deployed only on server nodes. If a
user wants to involve client nodes, then it should be done by specifying a
node filter. This is how the system works today. Let's not change it for no
good reason.

D.

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:31 AM, Anton Vinogradov  wrote:

> Denis,
>
> Main features of Ignite Cache are availability and throughput.
>
> I'd like to refactor Serviсe Grid to be the same.
> Main feature should be guarantee of availability and throughput (instance
> count).
>
> Client should ask grid to execute the service, that's all. No matter how
> grid will do this.
> This should be like cache 'put' or 'get' call.
>
> In case you want to execute something locally you should just implement it
> inside your application rather than deploy it to Ignite Cluster.
> There are absolutely no reason to mix local services and Service Grid.
>
> P.s. As for me, all "local" features should be deprecated, since we're
> distributed.
>
> чт, 26 июл. 2018 г. в 21:13, Denis Mekhanikov :
>
> > Anton,
> >
> > I believe, there are cases, when people want to have node singleton
> > services, that are deployed to clients, as well as to all other nodes.
> > And currently clients can execute compute jobs, issued by other clients,
> > and services are not very different from them.
> > Clients may store data and run code. We shouldn't consider them as
> > "end-user nodes". Only thin clients should be run by end users.
> >
> > But I agree, that we shouldn't encourage people to use services this way.
> > So, if it doesn't complicate the implementation too much, then a warning
> in
> > log will be enough, I think.
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > чт, 26 июл. 2018 г. в 19:56, Anton Vinogradov :
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > I don't think that it's a good idea to host services on client nodes.
> > > Client topology is not stable enough, and I don't see how to guarantee
> > > availability of such services.
> > > We'll have huge problems to guarantee availability in case of blinking
> > > clients.
> > >
> > > Also, taking into account that ignite cluster can have more that one
> user
> > > it looks odd that one user able to start service at another user's
> > hardware
> > > (bitcoin miners can be disagree with me).
> > >
> > > In case you want to use nodes only to host services - all you need is
> to
> > > filter them from cache affinity functions.
> > >
> > > I propose to implement Services pretty close to Cache implementation.
> > > It's a bad idea to reinvent the weel there.
> > > Let's just analyse Cache's code and do the same for services with same
> > > guarantee.
> > >
> > > ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 21:58, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > >
> > > > Denis, long service initialization isn't a big problem for us.
> > > >
> > > > The problem is hung initialization, that means the service deployment
> > > > will never complete.
> > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:08 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think, that this timeout shouldn't be mandatory, and it should be
> > > > > disabled by default.
> > > > > We should be ready for long service initialization. So, it
> shouldn't
> > be
> > > > > done in any crucial threads like discovery or exchange.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 15:59, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > FYI, I've filled the tickets:
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9075
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9076
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:54 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think such timeout should be determined on per-service
> level.
> > > > Can we
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy
> > > > method?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agree, per ServiceConfiguration level is more flexible
> solution.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is a great question. Will the service be able to
> continue
> > > > > > operating
> > > > > > > > after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it
> > > > > > automatically. If
> > > > > > > > yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully
> > > > printing
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > informative logs in either case, to make sure that there is
> no
> > > > magic
> > > > > > > > happening that is hidden from users.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A service will be able to work till topology's change after
> that
> > we
> > > > > > > have to recalculate assignments and at this moment we won't
> > > determine
> > > > > > > suitable nodes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will fill new tickets to work on these questions and to
> > implement
> > > > > > > solutions in the second iteration if 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Anton Vinogradov]

Denis,

Main features of Ignite Cache are availability and throughput.

I'd like to refactor Serviсe Grid to be the same.
Main feature should be guarantee of availability and throughput (instance
count).

Client should ask grid to execute the service, that's all. No matter how
grid will do this.
This should be like cache 'put' or 'get' call.

In case you want to execute something locally you should just implement it
inside your application rather than deploy it to Ignite Cluster.
There are absolutely no reason to mix local services and Service Grid.

P.s. As for me, all "local" features should be deprecated, since we're
distributed.

чт, 26 июл. 2018 г. в 21:13, Denis Mekhanikov :

> Anton,
>
> I believe, there are cases, when people want to have node singleton
> services, that are deployed to clients, as well as to all other nodes.
> And currently clients can execute compute jobs, issued by other clients,
> and services are not very different from them.
> Clients may store data and run code. We shouldn't consider them as
> "end-user nodes". Only thin clients should be run by end users.
>
> But I agree, that we shouldn't encourage people to use services this way.
> So, if it doesn't complicate the implementation too much, then a warning in
> log will be enough, I think.
>
> Denis
>
> чт, 26 июл. 2018 г. в 19:56, Anton Vinogradov :
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > I don't think that it's a good idea to host services on client nodes.
> > Client topology is not stable enough, and I don't see how to guarantee
> > availability of such services.
> > We'll have huge problems to guarantee availability in case of blinking
> > clients.
> >
> > Also, taking into account that ignite cluster can have more that one user
> > it looks odd that one user able to start service at another user's
> hardware
> > (bitcoin miners can be disagree with me).
> >
> > In case you want to use nodes only to host services - all you need is to
> > filter them from cache affinity functions.
> >
> > I propose to implement Services pretty close to Cache implementation.
> > It's a bad idea to reinvent the weel there.
> > Let's just analyse Cache's code and do the same for services with same
> > guarantee.
> >
> > ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 21:58, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> >
> > > Denis, long service initialization isn't a big problem for us.
> > >
> > > The problem is hung initialization, that means the service deployment
> > > will never complete.
> > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:08 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > >
> > > > I think, that this timeout shouldn't be mandatory, and it should be
> > > > disabled by default.
> > > > We should be ready for long service initialization. So, it shouldn't
> be
> > > > done in any crucial threads like discovery or exchange.
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 15:59, Vyacheslav Daradur  >:
> > > >
> > > > > FYI, I've filled the tickets:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9075
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9076
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:54 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think such timeout should be determined on per-service level.
> > > Can we
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy
> > > method?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agree, per ServiceConfiguration level is more flexible solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a great question. Will the service be able to continue
> > > > > operating
> > > > > > > after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it
> > > > > automatically. If
> > > > > > > yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully
> > > printing
> > > > > out
> > > > > > > informative logs in either case, to make sure that there is no
> > > magic
> > > > > > > happening that is hidden from users.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A service will be able to work till topology's change after that
> we
> > > > > > have to recalculate assignments and at this moment we won't
> > determine
> > > > > > suitable nodes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will fill new tickets to work on these questions and to
> implement
> > > > > > solutions in the second iteration if nobody doesn't mind.
> > > > > > Anyway, it will have been done to a release.
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:08 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Igniters, please help me to clarify the following questions:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1). According to the issue [1] we should propagate services
> > > > > deployment
> > > > > > > > results to an initiator, that means we should wait for wor
> > > > > > > > Service#init method completion.
> > > > > > > > How should we handle Service#init method hangup?
> > > > > > > > I propose 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

Anton,

I believe, there are cases, when people want to have node singleton
services, that are deployed to clients, as well as to all other nodes.
And currently clients can execute compute jobs, issued by other clients,
and services are not very different from them.
Clients may store data and run code. We shouldn't consider them as
"end-user nodes". Only thin clients should be run by end users.

But I agree, that we shouldn't encourage people to use services this way.
So, if it doesn't complicate the implementation too much, then a warning in
log will be enough, I think.

Denis

чт, 26 июл. 2018 г. в 19:56, Anton Vinogradov :

> Folks,
>
> I don't think that it's a good idea to host services on client nodes.
> Client topology is not stable enough, and I don't see how to guarantee
> availability of such services.
> We'll have huge problems to guarantee availability in case of blinking
> clients.
>
> Also, taking into account that ignite cluster can have more that one user
> it looks odd that one user able to start service at another user's hardware
> (bitcoin miners can be disagree with me).
>
> In case you want to use nodes only to host services - all you need is to
> filter them from cache affinity functions.
>
> I propose to implement Services pretty close to Cache implementation.
> It's a bad idea to reinvent the weel there.
> Let's just analyse Cache's code and do the same for services with same
> guarantee.
>
> ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 21:58, Vyacheslav Daradur :
>
> > Denis, long service initialization isn't a big problem for us.
> >
> > The problem is hung initialization, that means the service deployment
> > will never complete.
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:08 PM Denis Mekhanikov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > I think, that this timeout shouldn't be mandatory, and it should be
> > > disabled by default.
> > > We should be ready for long service initialization. So, it shouldn't be
> > > done in any crucial threads like discovery or exchange.
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 15:59, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > >
> > > > FYI, I've filled the tickets:
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9075
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9076
> > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:54 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think such timeout should be determined on per-service level.
> > Can we
> > > > make
> > > > > > it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy
> > method?
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree, per ServiceConfiguration level is more flexible solution.
> > > > >
> > > > > > This is a great question. Will the service be able to continue
> > > > operating
> > > > > > after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it
> > > > automatically. If
> > > > > > yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully
> > printing
> > > > out
> > > > > > informative logs in either case, to make sure that there is no
> > magic
> > > > > > happening that is hidden from users.
> > > > >
> > > > > A service will be able to work till topology's change after that we
> > > > > have to recalculate assignments and at this moment we won't
> determine
> > > > > suitable nodes.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will fill new tickets to work on these questions and to implement
> > > > > solutions in the second iteration if nobody doesn't mind.
> > > > > Anyway, it will have been done to a release.
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:08 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Igniters, please help me to clarify the following questions:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1). According to the issue [1] we should propagate services
> > > > deployment
> > > > > > > results to an initiator, that means we should wait for wor
> > > > > > > Service#init method completion.
> > > > > > > How should we handle Service#init method hangup?
> > > > > > > I propose to introduce some kind of
> > > > > > > IgniteSystemProperties#IGNITE_SERVICE_INIT_TIMEOUT to interrupt
> > long
> > > > > > > initialization.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think such timeout should be determined on per-service level.
> > Can we
> > > > make
> > > > > > it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy
> > method?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) Should we automatically undeploy services, which had been
> > deployed
> > > > > > > using #deployKeyAffinitySingleton, on destroying of related
> > > > IgniteCache?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a great question. Will the service be able to continue
> > > > operating
> > > > > > after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it
> > > > automatically. If
> > > > > > yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully
> > printing
> > > > out
> > > > > > informative logs in either case, to make sure 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Denis, long service initialization isn't a big problem for us.

The problem is hung initialization, that means the service deployment
will never complete.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 8:08 PM Denis Mekhanikov  wrote:
>
> Vyacheslav,
>
> I think, that this timeout shouldn't be mandatory, and it should be
> disabled by default.
> We should be ready for long service initialization. So, it shouldn't be
> done in any crucial threads like discovery or exchange.
>
> Denis
>
> ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 15:59, Vyacheslav Daradur :
>
> > FYI, I've filled the tickets:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9075
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9076
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:54 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think such timeout should be determined on per-service level. Can we
> > make
> > > > it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy method?
> > >
> > > Agree, per ServiceConfiguration level is more flexible solution.
> > >
> > > > This is a great question. Will the service be able to continue
> > operating
> > > > after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it
> > automatically. If
> > > > yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully printing
> > out
> > > > informative logs in either case, to make sure that there is no magic
> > > > happening that is hidden from users.
> > >
> > > A service will be able to work till topology's change after that we
> > > have to recalculate assignments and at this moment we won't determine
> > > suitable nodes.
> > >
> > > I will fill new tickets to work on these questions and to implement
> > > solutions in the second iteration if nobody doesn't mind.
> > > Anyway, it will have been done to a release.
> > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:08 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Igniters, please help me to clarify the following questions:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1). According to the issue [1] we should propagate services
> > deployment
> > > > > results to an initiator, that means we should wait for wor
> > > > > Service#init method completion.
> > > > > How should we handle Service#init method hangup?
> > > > > I propose to introduce some kind of
> > > > > IgniteSystemProperties#IGNITE_SERVICE_INIT_TIMEOUT to interrupt long
> > > > > initialization.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think such timeout should be determined on per-service level. Can we
> > make
> > > > it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy method?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2) Should we automatically undeploy services, which had been deployed
> > > > > using #deployKeyAffinitySingleton, on destroying of related
> > IgniteCache?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > This is a great question. Will the service be able to continue
> > operating
> > > > after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it
> > automatically. If
> > > > yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully printing
> > out
> > > > informative logs in either case, to make sure that there is no magic
> > > > happening that is hidden from users.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3392
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:01 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Got it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, we will preserve this behavior.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:20 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By default the client nodes should be excluded form service
> > > > > deployment. The
> > > > > > > only way to include clients is to explicitly specify them
> > through node
> > > > > > > filter. This is how services are deployed today and we should
> > preserve
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > behavior.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe let's keep the functionality the way it is, since it
> > doesn't
> > > > > > > > interfere with the IEP?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But I think, it's worth mentioning as a warning in log, that a
> > > > > service is
> > > > > > > > deployed on a client node.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 12:44, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No, it's doesn't complicate implementation on the current
> > stage.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But we will have to change assignment function to forbid
> > client
> > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > even if configuration's node filter resolves them it can be
> > not
> > > > > > > > > transparent for the end user.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think the only 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

Vyacheslav,

I think, that this timeout shouldn't be mandatory, and it should be
disabled by default.
We should be ready for long service initialization. So, it shouldn't be
done in any crucial threads like discovery or exchange.

Denis

ср, 25 июл. 2018 г. в 15:59, Vyacheslav Daradur :

> FYI, I've filled the tickets:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9075
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9076
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:54 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think such timeout should be determined on per-service level. Can we
> make
> > > it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy method?
> >
> > Agree, per ServiceConfiguration level is more flexible solution.
> >
> > > This is a great question. Will the service be able to continue
> operating
> > > after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it
> automatically. If
> > > yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully printing
> out
> > > informative logs in either case, to make sure that there is no magic
> > > happening that is hidden from users.
> >
> > A service will be able to work till topology's change after that we
> > have to recalculate assignments and at this moment we won't determine
> > suitable nodes.
> >
> > I will fill new tickets to work on these questions and to implement
> > solutions in the second iteration if nobody doesn't mind.
> > Anyway, it will have been done to a release.
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:08 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Igniters, please help me to clarify the following questions:
> > > >
> > > > 1). According to the issue [1] we should propagate services
> deployment
> > > > results to an initiator, that means we should wait for wor
> > > > Service#init method completion.
> > > > How should we handle Service#init method hangup?
> > > > I propose to introduce some kind of
> > > > IgniteSystemProperties#IGNITE_SERVICE_INIT_TIMEOUT to interrupt long
> > > > initialization.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think such timeout should be determined on per-service level. Can we
> make
> > > it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy method?
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2) Should we automatically undeploy services, which had been deployed
> > > > using #deployKeyAffinitySingleton, on destroying of related
> IgniteCache?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > This is a great question. Will the service be able to continue
> operating
> > > after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it
> automatically. If
> > > yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully printing
> out
> > > informative logs in either case, to make sure that there is no magic
> > > happening that is hidden from users.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3392
> > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:01 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Got it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, we will preserve this behavior.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:20 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By default the client nodes should be excluded form service
> > > > deployment. The
> > > > > > only way to include clients is to explicitly specify them
> through node
> > > > > > filter. This is how services are deployed today and we should
> preserve
> > > > this
> > > > > > behavior.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe let's keep the functionality the way it is, since it
> doesn't
> > > > > > > interfere with the IEP?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But I think, it's worth mentioning as a warning in log, that a
> > > > service is
> > > > > > > deployed on a client node.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 12:44, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, it's doesn't complicate implementation on the current
> stage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But we will have to change assignment function to forbid
> client
> > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > even if configuration's node filter resolves them it can be
> not
> > > > > > > > transparent for the end user.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think the only use case to have such behavior is: hosting
> of not
> > > > > > > > collocated services on data free nodes with access to
> IgniteCaches
> > > > on
> > > > > > > > remote nodes in the same cluster.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:10 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't think, that client nodes, that host 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

FYI, I've filled the tickets:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9075
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9076
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:54 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
>
> > I think such timeout should be determined on per-service level. Can we make
> > it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy method?
>
> Agree, per ServiceConfiguration level is more flexible solution.
>
> > This is a great question. Will the service be able to continue operating
> > after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it automatically. If
> > yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully printing out
> > informative logs in either case, to make sure that there is no magic
> > happening that is hidden from users.
>
> A service will be able to work till topology's change after that we
> have to recalculate assignments and at this moment we won't determine
> suitable nodes.
>
> I will fill new tickets to work on these questions and to implement
> solutions in the second iteration if nobody doesn't mind.
> Anyway, it will have been done to a release.
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:08 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters, please help me to clarify the following questions:
> > >
> > > 1). According to the issue [1] we should propagate services deployment
> > > results to an initiator, that means we should wait for wor
> > > Service#init method completion.
> > > How should we handle Service#init method hangup?
> > > I propose to introduce some kind of
> > > IgniteSystemProperties#IGNITE_SERVICE_INIT_TIMEOUT to interrupt long
> > > initialization.
> > >
> >
> > I think such timeout should be determined on per-service level. Can we make
> > it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy method?
> >
> >
> > > 2) Should we automatically undeploy services, which had been deployed
> > > using #deployKeyAffinitySingleton, on destroying of related IgniteCache?
> > >
> > >
> > This is a great question. Will the service be able to continue operating
> > after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it automatically. If
> > yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully printing out
> > informative logs in either case, to make sure that there is no magic
> > happening that is hidden from users.
> >
> >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3392
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:01 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Got it.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, we will preserve this behavior.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:20 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> > > > 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > By default the client nodes should be excluded form service
> > > deployment. The
> > > > > only way to include clients is to explicitly specify them through node
> > > > > filter. This is how services are deployed today and we should preserve
> > > this
> > > > > behavior.
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe let's keep the functionality the way it is, since it doesn't
> > > > > > interfere with the IEP?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I think, it's worth mentioning as a warning in log, that a
> > > service is
> > > > > > deployed on a client node.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 12:44, Vyacheslav Daradur  > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, it's doesn't complicate implementation on the current stage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But we will have to change assignment function to forbid client
> > > nodes
> > > > > > > even if configuration's node filter resolves them it can be not
> > > > > > > transparent for the end user.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think the only use case to have such behavior is: hosting of not
> > > > > > > collocated services on data free nodes with access to IgniteCaches
> > > on
> > > > > > > remote nodes in the same cluster.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:10 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhani...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think, that client nodes, that host services make much
> > > sense.
> > > > > > > > May we forbid it? Does anybody know, when it may be useful?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, does it complicate the implementation somehow?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 11:57, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am close to completing the main tasks and I'm going to
> > > request a
> > > > > > > > > review in a couple weeks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have a question about the new design:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

> I think such timeout should be determined on per-service level. Can we make
> it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy method?

Agree, per ServiceConfiguration level is more flexible solution.

> This is a great question. Will the service be able to continue operating
> after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it automatically. If
> yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully printing out
> informative logs in either case, to make sure that there is no magic
> happening that is hidden from users.

A service will be able to work till topology's change after that we
have to recalculate assignments and at this moment we won't determine
suitable nodes.

I will fill new tickets to work on these questions and to implement
solutions in the second iteration if nobody doesn't mind.
Anyway, it will have been done to a release.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:08 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
 wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > Igniters, please help me to clarify the following questions:
> >
> > 1). According to the issue [1] we should propagate services deployment
> > results to an initiator, that means we should wait for wor
> > Service#init method completion.
> > How should we handle Service#init method hangup?
> > I propose to introduce some kind of
> > IgniteSystemProperties#IGNITE_SERVICE_INIT_TIMEOUT to interrupt long
> > initialization.
> >
>
> I think such timeout should be determined on per-service level. Can we make
> it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy method?
>
>
> > 2) Should we automatically undeploy services, which had been deployed
> > using #deployKeyAffinitySingleton, on destroying of related IgniteCache?
> >
> >
> This is a great question. Will the service be able to continue operating
> after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it automatically. If
> yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully printing out
> informative logs in either case, to make sure that there is no magic
> happening that is hidden from users.
>
>
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3392
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:01 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Got it.
> > >
> > > Yes, we will preserve this behavior.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:20 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > By default the client nodes should be excluded form service
> > deployment. The
> > > > only way to include clients is to explicitly specify them through node
> > > > filter. This is how services are deployed today and we should preserve
> > this
> > > > behavior.
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Maybe let's keep the functionality the way it is, since it doesn't
> > > > > interfere with the IEP?
> > > > >
> > > > > But I think, it's worth mentioning as a warning in log, that a
> > service is
> > > > > deployed on a client node.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 12:44, Vyacheslav Daradur  > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > No, it's doesn't complicate implementation on the current stage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But we will have to change assignment function to forbid client
> > nodes
> > > > > > even if configuration's node filter resolves them it can be not
> > > > > > transparent for the end user.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the only use case to have such behavior is: hosting of not
> > > > > > collocated services on data free nodes with access to IgniteCaches
> > on
> > > > > > remote nodes in the same cluster.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:10 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think, that client nodes, that host services make much
> > sense.
> > > > > > > May we forbid it? Does anybody know, when it may be useful?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vyacheslav, does it complicate the implementation somehow?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 11:57, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am close to completing the main tasks and I'm going to
> > request a
> > > > > > > > review in a couple weeks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have a question about the new design:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The current implementation of Service Grid doesn't' take into
> > account
> > > > > > > > Ignition#client(true).
> > > > > > > > It means that *clients* nodes are able to host services. There
> > are
> > > > > > > > some tests that expect such behavior.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Services assignments are managed by a predicate only
> > > > > > > > (ServiceConfiguration#setNodeFilter(IgnitePredicate<
> > ClusterNode>).
> > > > > > > >

Re: Service grid redesign

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> Igniters, please help me to clarify the following questions:
>
> 1). According to the issue [1] we should propagate services deployment
> results to an initiator, that means we should wait for wor
> Service#init method completion.
> How should we handle Service#init method hangup?
> I propose to introduce some kind of
> IgniteSystemProperties#IGNITE_SERVICE_INIT_TIMEOUT to interrupt long
> initialization.
>

I think such timeout should be determined on per-service level. Can we make
it part of the service configuration, or pass it into deploy method?


> 2) Should we automatically undeploy services, which had been deployed
> using #deployKeyAffinitySingleton, on destroying of related IgniteCache?
>
>
This is a great question. Will the service be able to continue operating
after the cache is destroyed? If not, I would undeploy it automatically. If
yes, I would keep it. Please make sure that you are carefully printing out
informative logs in either case, to make sure that there is no magic
happening that is hidden from users.


> Thoughts?
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3392
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:01 PM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
> >
> > Got it.
> >
> > Yes, we will preserve this behavior.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:20 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > By default the client nodes should be excluded form service
> deployment. The
> > > only way to include clients is to explicitly specify them through node
> > > filter. This is how services are deployed today and we should preserve
> this
> > > behavior.
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Maybe let's keep the functionality the way it is, since it doesn't
> > > > interfere with the IEP?
> > > >
> > > > But I think, it's worth mentioning as a warning in log, that a
> service is
> > > > deployed on a client node.
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 12:44, Vyacheslav Daradur  >:
> > > >
> > > > > No, it's doesn't complicate implementation on the current stage.
> > > > >
> > > > > But we will have to change assignment function to forbid client
> nodes
> > > > > even if configuration's node filter resolves them it can be not
> > > > > transparent for the end user.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the only use case to have such behavior is: hosting of not
> > > > > collocated services on data free nodes with access to IgniteCaches
> on
> > > > > remote nodes in the same cluster.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:10 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhani...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think, that client nodes, that host services make much
> sense.
> > > > > > May we forbid it? Does anybody know, when it may be useful?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vyacheslav, does it complicate the implementation somehow?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 11:57, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am close to completing the main tasks and I'm going to
> request a
> > > > > > > review in a couple weeks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have a question about the new design:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The current implementation of Service Grid doesn't' take into
> account
> > > > > > > Ignition#client(true).
> > > > > > > It means that *clients* nodes are able to host services. There
> are
> > > > > > > some tests that expect such behavior.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Services assignments are managed by a predicate only
> > > > > > > (ServiceConfiguration#setNodeFilter(IgnitePredicate<
> ClusterNode>).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Should deployment on clients nodes be forbidden or we
> shouldn't mix
> > > > > > > concepts for IgniteCache with Service Grid?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:46 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, the task [1] is planned to be implemented once the
> main
> > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > > will be completed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8367
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Awesome! This is a huge addition to the project.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:06 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > > > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > How about service redeployment in case if user wants to
> update
> > > > > the
> > > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Igniters, please help me to clarify the following questions:

1). According to the issue [1] we should propagate services deployment
results to an initiator, that means we should wait for wor
Service#init method completion.
How should we handle Service#init method hangup?
I propose to introduce some kind of
IgniteSystemProperties#IGNITE_SERVICE_INIT_TIMEOUT to interrupt long
initialization.

2) Should we automatically undeploy services, which had been deployed
using #deployKeyAffinitySingleton, on destroying of related
IgniteCache?

Thoughts?

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3392
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:01 PM Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
>
> Got it.
>
> Yes, we will preserve this behavior.
>
> Thanks!
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:20 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan  
> wrote:
> >
> > By default the client nodes should be excluded form service deployment. The
> > only way to include clients is to explicitly specify them through node
> > filter. This is how services are deployed today and we should preserve this
> > behavior.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Denis Mekhanikov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe let's keep the functionality the way it is, since it doesn't
> > > interfere with the IEP?
> > >
> > > But I think, it's worth mentioning as a warning in log, that a service is
> > > deployed on a client node.
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 12:44, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > >
> > > > No, it's doesn't complicate implementation on the current stage.
> > > >
> > > > But we will have to change assignment function to forbid client nodes
> > > > even if configuration's node filter resolves them it can be not
> > > > transparent for the end user.
> > > >
> > > > I think the only use case to have such behavior is: hosting of not
> > > > collocated services on data free nodes with access to IgniteCaches on
> > > > remote nodes in the same cluster.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:10 PM Denis Mekhanikov  > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think, that client nodes, that host services make much sense.
> > > > > May we forbid it? Does anybody know, when it may be useful?
> > > > >
> > > > > Vyacheslav, does it complicate the implementation somehow?
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 11:57, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am close to completing the main tasks and I'm going to request a
> > > > > > review in a couple weeks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a question about the new design:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The current implementation of Service Grid doesn't' take into 
> > > > > > account
> > > > > > Ignition#client(true).
> > > > > > It means that *clients* nodes are able to host services. There are
> > > > > > some tests that expect such behavior.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Services assignments are managed by a predicate only
> > > > > > (ServiceConfiguration#setNodeFilter(IgnitePredicate).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Should deployment on clients nodes be forbidden or we shouldn't mix
> > > > > > concepts for IgniteCache with Service Grid?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:46 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, the task [1] is planned to be implemented once the main
> > > tasks
> > > > > > > > will be completed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8367
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Awesome! This is a huge addition to the project.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:06 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How about service redeployment in case if user wants to update
> > > > the
> > > > > > code?
> > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > this planned?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.



--
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Got it.

Yes, we will preserve this behavior.

Thanks!
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:20 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan  wrote:
>
> By default the client nodes should be excluded form service deployment. The
> only way to include clients is to explicitly specify them through node
> filter. This is how services are deployed today and we should preserve this
> behavior.
>
> D.
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Denis Mekhanikov 
> wrote:
>
> > Maybe let's keep the functionality the way it is, since it doesn't
> > interfere with the IEP?
> >
> > But I think, it's worth mentioning as a warning in log, that a service is
> > deployed on a client node.
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 12:44, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> >
> > > No, it's doesn't complicate implementation on the current stage.
> > >
> > > But we will have to change assignment function to forbid client nodes
> > > even if configuration's node filter resolves them it can be not
> > > transparent for the end user.
> > >
> > > I think the only use case to have such behavior is: hosting of not
> > > collocated services on data free nodes with access to IgniteCaches on
> > > remote nodes in the same cluster.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:10 PM Denis Mekhanikov  > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't think, that client nodes, that host services make much sense.
> > > > May we forbid it? Does anybody know, when it may be useful?
> > > >
> > > > Vyacheslav, does it complicate the implementation somehow?
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 11:57, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > >
> > > > > I am close to completing the main tasks and I'm going to request a
> > > > > review in a couple weeks.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a question about the new design:
> > > > >
> > > > > The current implementation of Service Grid doesn't' take into account
> > > > > Ignition#client(true).
> > > > > It means that *clients* nodes are able to host services. There are
> > > > > some tests that expect such behavior.
> > > > >
> > > > > Services assignments are managed by a predicate only
> > > > > (ServiceConfiguration#setNodeFilter(IgnitePredicate).
> > > > >
> > > > > Should deployment on clients nodes be forbidden or we shouldn't mix
> > > > > concepts for IgniteCache with Service Grid?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:46 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Dmitriy,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, the task [1] is planned to be implemented once the main
> > tasks
> > > > > > > will be completed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8367
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Awesome! This is a huge addition to the project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:06 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How about service redeployment in case if user wants to update
> > > the
> > > > > code?
> > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > this planned?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > >
> >



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

By default the client nodes should be excluded form service deployment. The
only way to include clients is to explicitly specify them through node
filter. This is how services are deployed today and we should preserve this
behavior.

D.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Denis Mekhanikov 
wrote:

> Maybe let's keep the functionality the way it is, since it doesn't
> interfere with the IEP?
>
> But I think, it's worth mentioning as a warning in log, that a service is
> deployed on a client node.
>
> Denis
>
> вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 12:44, Vyacheslav Daradur :
>
> > No, it's doesn't complicate implementation on the current stage.
> >
> > But we will have to change assignment function to forbid client nodes
> > even if configuration's node filter resolves them it can be not
> > transparent for the end user.
> >
> > I think the only use case to have such behavior is: hosting of not
> > collocated services on data free nodes with access to IgniteCaches on
> > remote nodes in the same cluster.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:10 PM Denis Mekhanikov  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think, that client nodes, that host services make much sense.
> > > May we forbid it? Does anybody know, when it may be useful?
> > >
> > > Vyacheslav, does it complicate the implementation somehow?
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 11:57, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > >
> > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > >
> > > > I am close to completing the main tasks and I'm going to request a
> > > > review in a couple weeks.
> > > >
> > > > I have a question about the new design:
> > > >
> > > > The current implementation of Service Grid doesn't' take into account
> > > > Ignition#client(true).
> > > > It means that *clients* nodes are able to host services. There are
> > > > some tests that expect such behavior.
> > > >
> > > > Services assignments are managed by a predicate only
> > > > (ServiceConfiguration#setNodeFilter(IgnitePredicate).
> > > >
> > > > Should deployment on clients nodes be forbidden or we shouldn't mix
> > > > concepts for IgniteCache with Service Grid?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:46 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Dmitriy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, the task [1] is planned to be implemented once the main
> tasks
> > > > > > will be completed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8367
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Awesome! This is a huge addition to the project.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:06 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How about service redeployment in case if user wants to update
> > the
> > > > code?
> > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > this planned?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

Maybe let's keep the functionality the way it is, since it doesn't
interfere with the IEP?

But I think, it's worth mentioning as a warning in log, that a service is
deployed on a client node.

Denis

вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 12:44, Vyacheslav Daradur :

> No, it's doesn't complicate implementation on the current stage.
>
> But we will have to change assignment function to forbid client nodes
> even if configuration's node filter resolves them it can be not
> transparent for the end user.
>
> I think the only use case to have such behavior is: hosting of not
> collocated services on data free nodes with access to IgniteCaches on
> remote nodes in the same cluster.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:10 PM Denis Mekhanikov 
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think, that client nodes, that host services make much sense.
> > May we forbid it? Does anybody know, when it may be useful?
> >
> > Vyacheslav, does it complicate the implementation somehow?
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 11:57, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> >
> > > Hi, Igniters!
> > >
> > > I am close to completing the main tasks and I'm going to request a
> > > review in a couple weeks.
> > >
> > > I have a question about the new design:
> > >
> > > The current implementation of Service Grid doesn't' take into account
> > > Ignition#client(true).
> > > It means that *clients* nodes are able to host services. There are
> > > some tests that expect such behavior.
> > >
> > > Services assignments are managed by a predicate only
> > > (ServiceConfiguration#setNodeFilter(IgnitePredicate).
> > >
> > > Should deployment on clients nodes be forbidden or we shouldn't mix
> > > concepts for IgniteCache with Service Grid?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:46 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> daradu...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Dmitriy,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, the task [1] is planned to be implemented once the main tasks
> > > > > will be completed.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8367
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Awesome! This is a huge addition to the project.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:06 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about service redeployment in case if user wants to update
> the
> > > code?
> > > > > Is
> > > > > > this planned?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > D.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

No, it's doesn't complicate implementation on the current stage.

But we will have to change assignment function to forbid client nodes
even if configuration's node filter resolves them it can be not
transparent for the end user.

I think the only use case to have such behavior is: hosting of not
collocated services on data free nodes with access to IgniteCaches on
remote nodes in the same cluster.




On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:10 PM Denis Mekhanikov  wrote:
>
> I don't think, that client nodes, that host services make much sense.
> May we forbid it? Does anybody know, when it may be useful?
>
> Vyacheslav, does it complicate the implementation somehow?
>
> Denis
>
> вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 11:57, Vyacheslav Daradur :
>
> > Hi, Igniters!
> >
> > I am close to completing the main tasks and I'm going to request a
> > review in a couple weeks.
> >
> > I have a question about the new design:
> >
> > The current implementation of Service Grid doesn't' take into account
> > Ignition#client(true).
> > It means that *clients* nodes are able to host services. There are
> > some tests that expect such behavior.
> >
> > Services assignments are managed by a predicate only
> > (ServiceConfiguration#setNodeFilter(IgnitePredicate).
> >
> > Should deployment on clients nodes be forbidden or we shouldn't mix
> > concepts for IgniteCache with Service Grid?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:46 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur  > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Dmitriy,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the task [1] is planned to be implemented once the main tasks
> > > > will be completed.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8367
> > >
> > >
> > > Awesome! This is a huge addition to the project.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:06 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > > > >
> > > > > How about service redeployment in case if user wants to update the
> > code?
> > > > Is
> > > > > this planned?
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

I don't think, that client nodes, that host services make much sense.
May we forbid it? Does anybody know, when it may be useful?

Vyacheslav, does it complicate the implementation somehow?

Denis

вт, 24 июл. 2018 г. в 11:57, Vyacheslav Daradur :

> Hi, Igniters!
>
> I am close to completing the main tasks and I'm going to request a
> review in a couple weeks.
>
> I have a question about the new design:
>
> The current implementation of Service Grid doesn't' take into account
> Ignition#client(true).
> It means that *clients* nodes are able to host services. There are
> some tests that expect such behavior.
>
> Services assignments are managed by a predicate only
> (ServiceConfiguration#setNodeFilter(IgnitePredicate).
>
> Should deployment on clients nodes be forbidden or we shouldn't mix
> concepts for IgniteCache with Service Grid?
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:46 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Dmitriy,
> > >
> > > Yes, the task [1] is planned to be implemented once the main tasks
> > > will be completed.
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8367
> >
> >
> > Awesome! This is a huge addition to the project.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:06 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > > >
> > > > How about service redeployment in case if user wants to update the
> code?
> > > Is
> > > > this planned?
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Hi, Igniters!

I am close to completing the main tasks and I'm going to request a
review in a couple weeks.

I have a question about the new design:

The current implementation of Service Grid doesn't' take into account
Ignition#client(true).
It means that *clients* nodes are able to host services. There are
some tests that expect such behavior.

Services assignments are managed by a predicate only
(ServiceConfiguration#setNodeFilter(IgnitePredicate).

Should deployment on clients nodes be forbidden or we shouldn't mix
concepts for IgniteCache with Service Grid?


On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:46 AM Dmitriy Setrakyan  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Dmitriy,
> >
> > Yes, the task [1] is planned to be implemented once the main tasks
> > will be completed.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8367
>
>
> Awesome! This is a huge addition to the project.
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:06 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > How about service redeployment in case if user wants to update the code?
> > Is
> > > this planned?
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> >



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> Hi Dmitriy,
>
> Yes, the task [1] is planned to be implemented once the main tasks
> will be completed.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8367


Awesome! This is a huge addition to the project.


>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:06 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vyacheslav,
> >
> > How about service redeployment in case if user wants to update the code?
> Is
> > this planned?
> >
> > D.
> >
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Hi Dmitriy,

Yes, the task [1] is planned to be implemented once the main tasks
will be completed.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8367

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:06 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan
 wrote:
>
> Hi Vyacheslav,
>
> How about service redeployment in case if user wants to update the code? Is
> this planned?
>
> D.
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Denis!
> >
> > >> If to assume that Ignite 2.7 gets released in September, what else
> > would you be able to complete by that time?
> >
> > The following tasks will be completed by September:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8361 - Use discovery
> > messages for service deployment
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8362 - Collect service
> > deployment results asynchronously on coordinator
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3392 - Propagate service
> > deployment results from assigned nodes to initiator
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8366 - Replace service
> > instance parameter with a class name in ServiceConfiguration
> >
> > The following tasks will be completed by the end of September:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8363 - Handle topology
> > changes during service deployment
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8364 - Propagate deployed
> > services to joining nodes
> >
> > >> Is someone else going to help you with this initiative?
> >
> > Yes, Nikita Amelchev is going to help at least with IGNITE-8366 and
> > with testing.
> >
> > >> Plus, do you think you'll be able to complete the whole IEP by the end
> > of the year?
> >
> > Definitely, I intend to complete the IEP-17 by the end of the year.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:29 PM Denis Magda  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Vyacheslav,
> > >
> > > If to assume that Ignite 2.7 gets released in September, what else would
> > > you be able to complete by that time? I would see how to promote this
> > from
> > > the community side (articles, webinars, meetups).
> > >
> > > Plus, do you think you'll be able to complete the whole IEP by the end of
> > > the year? Is someone else going to help you with this initiative? That
> > > would be a huge New Year gift to Ignite community.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Igniters, sorry for the delay in replying.
> > > >
> > > > I going to finish the task [1] to the end of this month.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8361
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > >
> > > > > I had a discussion about the scope of work of IEP-17 with Denis and
> > > > Pavel.
> > > > >
> > > > > To estimate the time I took 2 weeks for R during which I would do
> > the
> > > > task:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8361
> > > > >
> > > > > Then I will inform the community about the planned work time.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> Thanks, Denis! I assigned the task to myself.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I going to start work next week.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>> Hi Vyacheslav!
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks for the enthusiasm!
> > > > >>> The first ticket to be implemented here is IGNITE-8361
> > > > >>> .
> > > > >>> I think, until this one is resolved, other tasks can't be started.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Please assign it to yourself, if you feel confident enough.
> > > > >>> Feel free to ask for any help, if you need.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> For now it will be enough to perform service deployment and
> > > > initialization
> > > > >>> in the discovery thread.
> > > > >>> Making it asynchronous will be our next step: IGNITE-8362
> > > > >>> 
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Denis
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> вт, 24 апр. 2018 г. в 15:43, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradu...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>>
> > > >  Hi, Denis M.,
> > > > 
> > > >  I'd like to pick up a ticket from IEP-17 next week.
> > > > 
> > > >  Could you please advise a ticket to start?
> > > > 
> > > >  On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > > >   wrote:
> > > >  > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:59 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > >  > wrote:
> > > >  >
> > > >  >> Dmitriy,
> > > >  >>
> > > >  >> After the proposed changes are made the utility cache won't be
> > > > needed at
> > > >  >> all.
> > > >  >>
> > > >  >
> > > >  > I was rather talking about prioritization. In my view, first and
> > > > foremost
> > > >  > we must fix deployment before anything else.
> > > >  >
> 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Hi Denis!

>> If to assume that Ignite 2.7 gets released in September, what else would you 
>> be able to complete by that time?

The following tasks will be completed by September:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8361 - Use discovery
messages for service deployment
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8362 - Collect service
deployment results asynchronously on coordinator
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3392 - Propagate service
deployment results from assigned nodes to initiator
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8366 - Replace service
instance parameter with a class name in ServiceConfiguration

The following tasks will be completed by the end of September:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8363 - Handle topology
changes during service deployment
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8364 - Propagate deployed
services to joining nodes

>> Is someone else going to help you with this initiative?

Yes, Nikita Amelchev is going to help at least with IGNITE-8366 and
with testing.

>> Plus, do you think you'll be able to complete the whole IEP by the end of 
>> the year?

Definitely, I intend to complete the IEP-17 by the end of the year.


On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:29 PM Denis Magda  wrote:
>
> Hi Vyacheslav,
>
> If to assume that Ignite 2.7 gets released in September, what else would
> you be able to complete by that time? I would see how to promote this from
> the community side (articles, webinars, meetups).
>
> Plus, do you think you'll be able to complete the whole IEP by the end of
> the year? Is someone else going to help you with this initiative? That
> would be a huge New Year gift to Ignite community.
>
> --
> Denis
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Igniters, sorry for the delay in replying.
> >
> > I going to finish the task [1] to the end of this month.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8361
> >
> > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur
> >  wrote:
> > > Hi, Igniters!
> > >
> > > I had a discussion about the scope of work of IEP-17 with Denis and
> > Pavel.
> > >
> > > To estimate the time I took 2 weeks for R during which I would do the
> > task:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8361
> > >
> > > Then I will inform the community about the planned work time.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> > wrote:
> > >> Thanks, Denis! I assigned the task to myself.
> > >>
> > >> I going to start work next week.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Denis Mekhanikov 
> > wrote:
> > >>> Hi Vyacheslav!
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for the enthusiasm!
> > >>> The first ticket to be implemented here is IGNITE-8361
> > >>> .
> > >>> I think, until this one is resolved, other tasks can't be started.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please assign it to yourself, if you feel confident enough.
> > >>> Feel free to ask for any help, if you need.
> > >>>
> > >>> For now it will be enough to perform service deployment and
> > initialization
> > >>> in the discovery thread.
> > >>> Making it asynchronous will be our next step: IGNITE-8362
> > >>> 
> > >>>
> > >>> Denis
> > >>>
> > >>> вт, 24 апр. 2018 г. в 15:43, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> > >>>
> >  Hi, Denis M.,
> > 
> >  I'd like to pick up a ticket from IEP-17 next week.
> > 
> >  Could you please advise a ticket to start?
> > 
> >  On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> >   wrote:
> >  > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:59 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> >  > wrote:
> >  >
> >  >> Dmitriy,
> >  >>
> >  >> After the proposed changes are made the utility cache won't be
> > needed at
> >  >> all.
> >  >>
> >  >
> >  > I was rather talking about prioritization. In my view, first and
> > foremost
> >  > we must fix deployment before anything else.
> >  >
> >  > D.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  --
> >  Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Magda]

Hi Vyacheslav,

If to assume that Ignite 2.7 gets released in September, what else would
you be able to complete by that time? I would see how to promote this from
the community side (articles, webinars, meetups).

Plus, do you think you'll be able to complete the whole IEP by the end of
the year? Is someone else going to help you with this initiative? That
would be a huge New Year gift to Ignite community.

--
Denis

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:51 AM Vyacheslav Daradur 
wrote:

> Hi Igniters, sorry for the delay in replying.
>
> I going to finish the task [1] to the end of this month.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8361
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur
>  wrote:
> > Hi, Igniters!
> >
> > I had a discussion about the scope of work of IEP-17 with Denis and
> Pavel.
> >
> > To estimate the time I took 2 weeks for R during which I would do the
> task:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8361
> >
> > Then I will inform the community about the planned work time.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur 
> wrote:
> >> Thanks, Denis! I assigned the task to myself.
> >>
> >> I going to start work next week.
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Denis Mekhanikov 
> wrote:
> >>> Hi Vyacheslav!
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the enthusiasm!
> >>> The first ticket to be implemented here is IGNITE-8361
> >>> .
> >>> I think, until this one is resolved, other tasks can't be started.
> >>>
> >>> Please assign it to yourself, if you feel confident enough.
> >>> Feel free to ask for any help, if you need.
> >>>
> >>> For now it will be enough to perform service deployment and
> initialization
> >>> in the discovery thread.
> >>> Making it asynchronous will be our next step: IGNITE-8362
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>> вт, 24 апр. 2018 г. в 15:43, Vyacheslav Daradur :
> >>>
>  Hi, Denis M.,
> 
>  I'd like to pick up a ticket from IEP-17 next week.
> 
>  Could you please advise a ticket to start?
> 
>  On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>   wrote:
>  > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:59 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhani...@gmail.com>
>  > wrote:
>  >
>  >> Dmitriy,
>  >>
>  >> After the proposed changes are made the utility cache won't be
> needed at
>  >> all.
>  >>
>  >
>  > I was rather talking about prioritization. In my view, first and
> foremost
>  > we must fix deployment before anything else.
>  >
>  > D.
> 
> 
> 
>  --
>  Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Hi Igniters, sorry for the delay in replying.

I going to finish the task [1] to the end of this month.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8361

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:57 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur
 wrote:
> Hi, Igniters!
>
> I had a discussion about the scope of work of IEP-17 with Denis and Pavel.
>
> To estimate the time I took 2 weeks for R during which I would do the task:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8361
>
> Then I will inform the community about the planned work time.
>
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur  
> wrote:
>> Thanks, Denis! I assigned the task to myself.
>>
>> I going to start work next week.
>>
>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Denis Mekhanikov  
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Vyacheslav!
>>>
>>> Thanks for the enthusiasm!
>>> The first ticket to be implemented here is IGNITE-8361
>>> .
>>> I think, until this one is resolved, other tasks can't be started.
>>>
>>> Please assign it to yourself, if you feel confident enough.
>>> Feel free to ask for any help, if you need.
>>>
>>> For now it will be enough to perform service deployment and initialization
>>> in the discovery thread.
>>> Making it asynchronous will be our next step: IGNITE-8362
>>> 
>>>
>>> Denis
>>>
>>> вт, 24 апр. 2018 г. в 15:43, Vyacheslav Daradur :
>>>
 Hi, Denis M.,

 I'd like to pick up a ticket from IEP-17 next week.

 Could you please advise a ticket to start?

 On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
  wrote:
 > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:59 PM Denis Mekhanikov 
 > wrote:
 >
 >> Dmitriy,
 >>
 >> After the proposed changes are made the utility cache won't be needed at
 >> all.
 >>
 >
 > I was rather talking about prioritization. In my view, first and foremost
 > we must fix deployment before anything else.
 >
 > D.



 --
 Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Hi, Igniters!

I had a discussion about the scope of work of IEP-17 with Denis and Pavel.

To estimate the time I took 2 weeks for R during which I would do the task:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8361

Then I will inform the community about the planned work time.


On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur  wrote:
> Thanks, Denis! I assigned the task to myself.
>
> I going to start work next week.
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Denis Mekhanikov  
> wrote:
>> Hi Vyacheslav!
>>
>> Thanks for the enthusiasm!
>> The first ticket to be implemented here is IGNITE-8361
>> .
>> I think, until this one is resolved, other tasks can't be started.
>>
>> Please assign it to yourself, if you feel confident enough.
>> Feel free to ask for any help, if you need.
>>
>> For now it will be enough to perform service deployment and initialization
>> in the discovery thread.
>> Making it asynchronous will be our next step: IGNITE-8362
>> 
>>
>> Denis
>>
>> вт, 24 апр. 2018 г. в 15:43, Vyacheslav Daradur :
>>
>>> Hi, Denis M.,
>>>
>>> I'd like to pick up a ticket from IEP-17 next week.
>>>
>>> Could you please advise a ticket to start?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>>>  wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:59 PM Denis Mekhanikov 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Dmitriy,
>>> >>
>>> >> After the proposed changes are made the utility cache won't be needed at
>>> >> all.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > I was rather talking about prioritization. In my view, first and foremost
>>> > we must fix deployment before anything else.
>>> >
>>> > D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Thanks, Denis! I assigned the task to myself.

I going to start work next week.

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Denis Mekhanikov  wrote:
> Hi Vyacheslav!
>
> Thanks for the enthusiasm!
> The first ticket to be implemented here is IGNITE-8361
> .
> I think, until this one is resolved, other tasks can't be started.
>
> Please assign it to yourself, if you feel confident enough.
> Feel free to ask for any help, if you need.
>
> For now it will be enough to perform service deployment and initialization
> in the discovery thread.
> Making it asynchronous will be our next step: IGNITE-8362
> 
>
> Denis
>
> вт, 24 апр. 2018 г. в 15:43, Vyacheslav Daradur :
>
>> Hi, Denis M.,
>>
>> I'd like to pick up a ticket from IEP-17 next week.
>>
>> Could you please advise a ticket to start?
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>>  wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:59 PM Denis Mekhanikov 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dmitriy,
>> >>
>> >> After the proposed changes are made the utility cache won't be needed at
>> >> all.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I was rather talking about prioritization. In my view, first and foremost
>> > we must fix deployment before anything else.
>> >
>> > D.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>>



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

Hi Vyacheslav!

Thanks for the enthusiasm!
The first ticket to be implemented here is IGNITE-8361
.
I think, until this one is resolved, other tasks can't be started.

Please assign it to yourself, if you feel confident enough.
Feel free to ask for any help, if you need.

For now it will be enough to perform service deployment and initialization
in the discovery thread.
Making it asynchronous will be our next step: IGNITE-8362


Denis

вт, 24 апр. 2018 г. в 15:43, Vyacheslav Daradur :

> Hi, Denis M.,
>
> I'd like to pick up a ticket from IEP-17 next week.
>
> Could you please advise a ticket to start?
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>  wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:59 PM Denis Mekhanikov 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dmitriy,
> >>
> >> After the proposed changes are made the utility cache won't be needed at
> >> all.
> >>
> >
> > I was rather talking about prioritization. In my view, first and foremost
> > we must fix deployment before anything else.
> >
> > D.
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>

Re: Service grid redesign

[Vyacheslav Daradur]

Hi, Denis M.,

I'd like to pick up a ticket from IEP-17 next week.

Could you please advise a ticket to start?

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
 wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:59 PM Denis Mekhanikov 
> wrote:
>
>> Dmitriy,
>>
>> After the proposed changes are made the utility cache won't be needed at
>> all.
>>
>
> I was rather talking about prioritization. In my view, first and foremost
> we must fix deployment before anything else.
>
> D.



-- 
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:59 PM Denis Mekhanikov 
wrote:

> Dmitriy,
>
> After the proposed changes are made the utility cache won't be needed at
> all.
>

I was rather talking about prioritization. In my view, first and foremost
we must fix deployment before anything else.

D.

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

Dmitriy,

After the proposed changes are made the utility cache won't be needed at
all.

I created the tickets for this IEP, you can find them on it's page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid
Or by label iep-17.

The one for getting rid of the utility cache:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8361

Denis


On Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 13:40 Dmitriy Setrakyan  wrote:

> Thanks! The IEP looks very big.
>
> I would like to remind everyone that one of the biggest problems we have
> with services is that it uses a replicated cache internally to do the
> deployment. When all nodes have the same service configured in the XML
> file, then all nodes will try to initiate a put into the replicated cache
> at the same time for the same key, which results in lots of contention and
> significantly slows down the startup speed.
>
> In my view, this is what needs to be fixed first. Is there a ticket for it?
>
> D.
>
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:
>
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > Consider IEP page as a summary that was updated along the way:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-
> > 17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid
> >
> > As far as I understand, Denis is going to create JIRA tickets basing on
> the
> > discussion results.
> >
> > --
> > Denis
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 3:04 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrak...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I am not sure why we are discussing a potential removal of the "init"
> > > method. I think it is useful, as the service may have to do some
> > > initialization before it goes online. I do not think this method is
> > hurting
> > > anyone.
> > >
> > > This thread is getting too long, and I am sure that most readers are
> > > already getting lost in the proposed design. I would start a new thread
> > > with a summary of all proposed changes.
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Denis,
> > > >
> > > > > On the other hand, if exception is thrown from the *execute()
> > *method,
> > > > then service won't be undeployed.
> > > >
> > > > This is actually weird... What is going to happen in this case and
> how
> > > user
> > > > would handle this?
> > > >
> > > > -Val
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:10 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Val,
> > > > >
> > > > > *init()* method is executed before a service is considered
> deployed.
> > > > > If any exception is thrown from it, then it will be handled as
> > > deployment
> > > > > failure.
> > > > >
> > > > > *execute() *method is run after the service is deployed, and it can
> > > keep
> > > > > running until the service is cancelled.
> > > > > This method has its own thread, so it can perform some background
> > work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Suppose you want to deploy HTTP server as a service on one of your
> > > nodes.
> > > > > You can place HTTP server creation logic in the *init() *method.
> > > > > If some nodes don't have a permission to listen to needed ports,
> > then a
> > > > > corresponding exception will be propagated to the user code.
> > > > > On the other hand, if exception is thrown from the *execute()
> > *method,
> > > > then
> > > > > service won't be undeployed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 2:35, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I totally agree with you. I'm just not sure why do we need two
> > > methods
> > > > > > (init and execute) that have virtually same semantics. With the
> new
> > > > > design,
> > > > > > what would be the difference between these methods from user
> point
> > of
> > > > > view,
> > > > > > and how one would determine what exactly should go in each of
> them?
> > > > > Unless
> > > > > > I'm missing something, it looks like unnecessary complication.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Val
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:00 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Val,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Service initialisation is not going to happen in the discovery
> > > > thread.
> > > > > > > It should be done asynchronously, and initialisation results
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > sent
> > > > > > > to the coordinator over communication.
> > > > > > > This is described in the IEP:
> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-
> > > > > > > 17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid#IEP-17:OilChangeinServiceGrid-
> > > > > > > Successfulscenario
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *init()* method is a validation step, making sure, that service
> > is
> > > > > ready
> > > > > > > for work.
> > > > > > > And deployment shouldn't be considered successful until
> *init()*
> > > > > methods
> > > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

Thanks! The IEP looks very big.

I would like to remind everyone that one of the biggest problems we have
with services is that it uses a replicated cache internally to do the
deployment. When all nodes have the same service configured in the XML
file, then all nodes will try to initiate a put into the replicated cache
at the same time for the same key, which results in lots of contention and
significantly slows down the startup speed.

In my view, this is what needs to be fixed first. Is there a ticket for it?

D.

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Denis Magda  wrote:

> Dmitriy,
>
> Consider IEP page as a summary that was updated along the way:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-
> 17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid
>
> As far as I understand, Denis is going to create JIRA tickets basing on the
> discussion results.
>
> --
> Denis
>
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 3:04 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
> wrote:
>
> > I am not sure why we are discussing a potential removal of the "init"
> > method. I think it is useful, as the service may have to do some
> > initialization before it goes online. I do not think this method is
> hurting
> > anyone.
> >
> > This thread is getting too long, and I am sure that most readers are
> > already getting lost in the proposed design. I would start a new thread
> > with a summary of all proposed changes.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Denis,
> > >
> > > > On the other hand, if exception is thrown from the *execute()
> *method,
> > > then service won't be undeployed.
> > >
> > > This is actually weird... What is going to happen in this case and how
> > user
> > > would handle this?
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:10 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhani...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Val,
> > > >
> > > > *init()* method is executed before a service is considered deployed.
> > > > If any exception is thrown from it, then it will be handled as
> > deployment
> > > > failure.
> > > >
> > > > *execute() *method is run after the service is deployed, and it can
> > keep
> > > > running until the service is cancelled.
> > > > This method has its own thread, so it can perform some background
> work.
> > > >
> > > > Suppose you want to deploy HTTP server as a service on one of your
> > nodes.
> > > > You can place HTTP server creation logic in the *init() *method.
> > > > If some nodes don't have a permission to listen to needed ports,
> then a
> > > > corresponding exception will be propagated to the user code.
> > > > On the other hand, if exception is thrown from the *execute()
> *method,
> > > then
> > > > service won't be undeployed.
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 2:35, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Denis,
> > > > >
> > > > > I totally agree with you. I'm just not sure why do we need two
> > methods
> > > > > (init and execute) that have virtually same semantics. With the new
> > > > design,
> > > > > what would be the difference between these methods from user point
> of
> > > > view,
> > > > > and how one would determine what exactly should go in each of them?
> > > > Unless
> > > > > I'm missing something, it looks like unnecessary complication.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Val
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:00 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhani...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Val,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Service initialisation is not going to happen in the discovery
> > > thread.
> > > > > > It should be done asynchronously, and initialisation results
> should
> > > be
> > > > > sent
> > > > > > to the coordinator over communication.
> > > > > > This is described in the IEP:
> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-
> > > > > > 17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid#IEP-17:OilChangeinServiceGrid-
> > > > > > Successfulscenario
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *init()* method is a validation step, making sure, that service
> is
> > > > ready
> > > > > > for work.
> > > > > > And deployment shouldn't be considered successful until *init()*
> > > > methods
> > > > > > finish their work on the assigned nodes.
> > > > > > Also *cancel() *and *init() *methods may be useful if we decide
> to
> > > > > > implement moving existing services to new nodes
> > > > > >  > > > > > 17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid#IEP-17:OilChangeinServiceGrid-
> > > > > > Movingexistingservicestonewnodes>
> > > > > >  in
> > > > > > future.
> > > > > > These methods can be used to save and restore service's state
> from
> > > > cache,
> > > > > > when it is rebalanced to another node.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Denis said, if we are not going to prevent nodes from starting
> > on
> > > > > > service failures, then we should at least generate 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Magda]

Dmitriy,

Consider IEP page as a summary that was updated along the way:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid

As far as I understand, Denis is going to create JIRA tickets basing on the
discussion results.

--
Denis

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 3:04 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan 
wrote:

> I am not sure why we are discussing a potential removal of the "init"
> method. I think it is useful, as the service may have to do some
> initialization before it goes online. I do not think this method is hurting
> anyone.
>
> This thread is getting too long, and I am sure that most readers are
> already getting lost in the proposed design. I would start a new thread
> with a summary of all proposed changes.
>
> D.
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Denis,
> >
> > > On the other hand, if exception is thrown from the *execute() *method,
> > then service won't be undeployed.
> >
> > This is actually weird... What is going to happen in this case and how
> user
> > would handle this?
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:10 AM, Denis Mekhanikov  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Val,
> > >
> > > *init()* method is executed before a service is considered deployed.
> > > If any exception is thrown from it, then it will be handled as
> deployment
> > > failure.
> > >
> > > *execute() *method is run after the service is deployed, and it can
> keep
> > > running until the service is cancelled.
> > > This method has its own thread, so it can perform some background work.
> > >
> > > Suppose you want to deploy HTTP server as a service on one of your
> nodes.
> > > You can place HTTP server creation logic in the *init() *method.
> > > If some nodes don't have a permission to listen to needed ports, then a
> > > corresponding exception will be propagated to the user code.
> > > On the other hand, if exception is thrown from the *execute() *method,
> > then
> > > service won't be undeployed.
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 2:35, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Denis,
> > > >
> > > > I totally agree with you. I'm just not sure why do we need two
> methods
> > > > (init and execute) that have virtually same semantics. With the new
> > > design,
> > > > what would be the difference between these methods from user point of
> > > view,
> > > > and how one would determine what exactly should go in each of them?
> > > Unless
> > > > I'm missing something, it looks like unnecessary complication.
> > > >
> > > > -Val
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:00 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Val,
> > > > >
> > > > > Service initialisation is not going to happen in the discovery
> > thread.
> > > > > It should be done asynchronously, and initialisation results should
> > be
> > > > sent
> > > > > to the coordinator over communication.
> > > > > This is described in the IEP:
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-
> > > > > 17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid#IEP-17:OilChangeinServiceGrid-
> > > > > Successfulscenario
> > > > >
> > > > > *init()* method is a validation step, making sure, that service is
> > > ready
> > > > > for work.
> > > > > And deployment shouldn't be considered successful until *init()*
> > > methods
> > > > > finish their work on the assigned nodes.
> > > > > Also *cancel() *and *init() *methods may be useful if we decide to
> > > > > implement moving existing services to new nodes
> > > > >  > > > > 17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid#IEP-17:OilChangeinServiceGrid-
> > > > > Movingexistingservicestonewnodes>
> > > > >  in
> > > > > future.
> > > > > These methods can be used to save and restore service's state from
> > > cache,
> > > > > when it is rebalanced to another node.
> > > > >
> > > > > As Denis said, if we are not going to prevent nodes from starting
> on
> > > > > service failures, then we should at least generate corresponding
> > > events.
> > > > > Otherwise there won't be any way to react to service initialization
> > > > > failures during nodes startup.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 17 апр. 2018 г. в 6:59, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I agree we shouldn't do anything synchronously within discovery
> > > > threads.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > something goes wrong, we just need to properly notify the user,
> > > logging
> > > > > and
> > > > > > events seem to be right options to achieve that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW, with this design I'm not sure init() method makes sense,
> > > probably
> > > > we
> > > > > > should deprecate it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Val
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Denis Magda  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

I am not sure why we are discussing a potential removal of the "init"
method. I think it is useful, as the service may have to do some
initialization before it goes online. I do not think this method is hurting
anyone.

This thread is getting too long, and I am sure that most readers are
already getting lost in the proposed design. I would start a new thread
with a summary of all proposed changes.

D.

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Denis,
>
> > On the other hand, if exception is thrown from the *execute() *method,
> then service won't be undeployed.
>
> This is actually weird... What is going to happen in this case and how user
> would handle this?
>
> -Val
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:10 AM, Denis Mekhanikov 
> wrote:
>
> > Val,
> >
> > *init()* method is executed before a service is considered deployed.
> > If any exception is thrown from it, then it will be handled as deployment
> > failure.
> >
> > *execute() *method is run after the service is deployed, and it can keep
> > running until the service is cancelled.
> > This method has its own thread, so it can perform some background work.
> >
> > Suppose you want to deploy HTTP server as a service on one of your nodes.
> > You can place HTTP server creation logic in the *init() *method.
> > If some nodes don't have a permission to listen to needed ports, then a
> > corresponding exception will be propagated to the user code.
> > On the other hand, if exception is thrown from the *execute() *method,
> then
> > service won't be undeployed.
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 2:35, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Denis,
> > >
> > > I totally agree with you. I'm just not sure why do we need two methods
> > > (init and execute) that have virtually same semantics. With the new
> > design,
> > > what would be the difference between these methods from user point of
> > view,
> > > and how one would determine what exactly should go in each of them?
> > Unless
> > > I'm missing something, it looks like unnecessary complication.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:00 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhani...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Val,
> > > >
> > > > Service initialisation is not going to happen in the discovery
> thread.
> > > > It should be done asynchronously, and initialisation results should
> be
> > > sent
> > > > to the coordinator over communication.
> > > > This is described in the IEP:
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-
> > > > 17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid#IEP-17:OilChangeinServiceGrid-
> > > > Successfulscenario
> > > >
> > > > *init()* method is a validation step, making sure, that service is
> > ready
> > > > for work.
> > > > And deployment shouldn't be considered successful until *init()*
> > methods
> > > > finish their work on the assigned nodes.
> > > > Also *cancel() *and *init() *methods may be useful if we decide to
> > > > implement moving existing services to new nodes
> > > >  > > > 17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid#IEP-17:OilChangeinServiceGrid-
> > > > Movingexistingservicestonewnodes>
> > > >  in
> > > > future.
> > > > These methods can be used to save and restore service's state from
> > cache,
> > > > when it is rebalanced to another node.
> > > >
> > > > As Denis said, if we are not going to prevent nodes from starting on
> > > > service failures, then we should at least generate corresponding
> > events.
> > > > Otherwise there won't be any way to react to service initialization
> > > > failures during nodes startup.
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > вт, 17 апр. 2018 г. в 6:59, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > I agree we shouldn't do anything synchronously within discovery
> > > threads.
> > > > If
> > > > > something goes wrong, we just need to properly notify the user,
> > logging
> > > > and
> > > > > events seem to be right options to achieve that.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, with this design I'm not sure init() method makes sense,
> > probably
> > > we
> > > > > should deprecate it.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Val
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Denis Magda 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In general, service initialization shouldn't prevent a node from
> > > > joining
> > > > > > the cluster or slowing down that process. Thus, I would start the
> > > > > > initialization routines only after the node is accepted by the
> > > cluster.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > the initialization fails then we need to report a respective
> > message
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > logs and, probably, generate a system event the user can be
> > > subscribed
> > > > > to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regardless, of the service initialization time, I think we still
> > need
> > > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Denis,

> On the other hand, if exception is thrown from the *execute() *method,
then service won't be undeployed.

This is actually weird... What is going to happen in this case and how user
would handle this?

-Val

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:10 AM, Denis Mekhanikov 
wrote:

> Val,
>
> *init()* method is executed before a service is considered deployed.
> If any exception is thrown from it, then it will be handled as deployment
> failure.
>
> *execute() *method is run after the service is deployed, and it can keep
> running until the service is cancelled.
> This method has its own thread, so it can perform some background work.
>
> Suppose you want to deploy HTTP server as a service on one of your nodes.
> You can place HTTP server creation logic in the *init() *method.
> If some nodes don't have a permission to listen to needed ports, then a
> corresponding exception will be propagated to the user code.
> On the other hand, if exception is thrown from the *execute() *method, then
> service won't be undeployed.
>
> Denis
>
> пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 2:35, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Denis,
> >
> > I totally agree with you. I'm just not sure why do we need two methods
> > (init and execute) that have virtually same semantics. With the new
> design,
> > what would be the difference between these methods from user point of
> view,
> > and how one would determine what exactly should go in each of them?
> Unless
> > I'm missing something, it looks like unnecessary complication.
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:00 AM, Denis Mekhanikov  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Val,
> > >
> > > Service initialisation is not going to happen in the discovery thread.
> > > It should be done asynchronously, and initialisation results should be
> > sent
> > > to the coordinator over communication.
> > > This is described in the IEP:
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-
> > > 17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid#IEP-17:OilChangeinServiceGrid-
> > > Successfulscenario
> > >
> > > *init()* method is a validation step, making sure, that service is
> ready
> > > for work.
> > > And deployment shouldn't be considered successful until *init()*
> methods
> > > finish their work on the assigned nodes.
> > > Also *cancel() *and *init() *methods may be useful if we decide to
> > > implement moving existing services to new nodes
> > >  > > 17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid#IEP-17:OilChangeinServiceGrid-
> > > Movingexistingservicestonewnodes>
> > >  in
> > > future.
> > > These methods can be used to save and restore service's state from
> cache,
> > > when it is rebalanced to another node.
> > >
> > > As Denis said, if we are not going to prevent nodes from starting on
> > > service failures, then we should at least generate corresponding
> events.
> > > Otherwise there won't be any way to react to service initialization
> > > failures during nodes startup.
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > вт, 17 апр. 2018 г. в 6:59, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > I agree we shouldn't do anything synchronously within discovery
> > threads.
> > > If
> > > > something goes wrong, we just need to properly notify the user,
> logging
> > > and
> > > > events seem to be right options to achieve that.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, with this design I'm not sure init() method makes sense,
> probably
> > we
> > > > should deprecate it.
> > > >
> > > > -Val
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Denis Magda 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Denis,
> > > > >
> > > > > In general, service initialization shouldn't prevent a node from
> > > joining
> > > > > the cluster or slowing down that process. Thus, I would start the
> > > > > initialization routines only after the node is accepted by the
> > cluster.
> > > > If
> > > > > the initialization fails then we need to report a respective
> message
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > logs and, probably, generate a system event the user can be
> > subscribed
> > > > to.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regardless, of the service initialization time, I think we still
> need
> > > to
> > > > > utilize discovery SPI to avoid problems discussed later.
> > > > >
> > > > > Val, others, what do you think about that?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Basically, my question is: at which moment services should be
> > > deployed
> > > > on
> > > > > > connecting nodes?
> > > > > > Should we reject a node from being included into a topology, if
> > > > services,
> > > > > > that are assigned to it, fail to deploy?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would be good to be sure, that all assigned services are
> > > initialised
> > > > > and
> > > > > > working, when node start is finished.
> > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Denis Mekhanikov]

Val,

*init()* method is executed before a service is considered deployed.
If any exception is thrown from it, then it will be handled as deployment
failure.

*execute() *method is run after the service is deployed, and it can keep
running until the service is cancelled.
This method has its own thread, so it can perform some background work.

Suppose you want to deploy HTTP server as a service on one of your nodes.
You can place HTTP server creation logic in the *init() *method.
If some nodes don't have a permission to listen to needed ports, then a
corresponding exception will be propagated to the user code.
On the other hand, if exception is thrown from the *execute() *method, then
service won't be undeployed.

Denis

пт, 20 апр. 2018 г. в 2:35, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>:

> Denis,
>
> I totally agree with you. I'm just not sure why do we need two methods
> (init and execute) that have virtually same semantics. With the new design,
> what would be the difference between these methods from user point of view,
> and how one would determine what exactly should go in each of them? Unless
> I'm missing something, it looks like unnecessary complication.
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:00 AM, Denis Mekhanikov 
> wrote:
>
> > Val,
> >
> > Service initialisation is not going to happen in the discovery thread.
> > It should be done asynchronously, and initialisation results should be
> sent
> > to the coordinator over communication.
> > This is described in the IEP:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-
> > 17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid#IEP-17:OilChangeinServiceGrid-
> > Successfulscenario
> >
> > *init()* method is a validation step, making sure, that service is ready
> > for work.
> > And deployment shouldn't be considered successful until *init()* methods
> > finish their work on the assigned nodes.
> > Also *cancel() *and *init() *methods may be useful if we decide to
> > implement moving existing services to new nodes
> >  > 17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid#IEP-17:OilChangeinServiceGrid-
> > Movingexistingservicestonewnodes>
> >  in
> > future.
> > These methods can be used to save and restore service's state from cache,
> > when it is rebalanced to another node.
> >
> > As Denis said, if we are not going to prevent nodes from starting on
> > service failures, then we should at least generate corresponding events.
> > Otherwise there won't be any way to react to service initialization
> > failures during nodes startup.
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > вт, 17 апр. 2018 г. в 6:59, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > I agree we shouldn't do anything synchronously within discovery
> threads.
> > If
> > > something goes wrong, we just need to properly notify the user, logging
> > and
> > > events seem to be right options to achieve that.
> > >
> > > BTW, with this design I'm not sure init() method makes sense, probably
> we
> > > should deprecate it.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Denis Magda 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Denis,
> > > >
> > > > In general, service initialization shouldn't prevent a node from
> > joining
> > > > the cluster or slowing down that process. Thus, I would start the
> > > > initialization routines only after the node is accepted by the
> cluster.
> > > If
> > > > the initialization fails then we need to report a respective message
> to
> > > the
> > > > logs and, probably, generate a system event the user can be
> subscribed
> > > to.
> > > >
> > > > Regardless, of the service initialization time, I think we still need
> > to
> > > > utilize discovery SPI to avoid problems discussed later.
> > > >
> > > > Val, others, what do you think about that?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Basically, my question is: at which moment services should be
> > deployed
> > > on
> > > > > connecting nodes?
> > > > > Should we reject a node from being included into a topology, if
> > > services,
> > > > > that are assigned to it, fail to deploy?
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be good to be sure, that all assigned services are
> > initialised
> > > > and
> > > > > working, when node start is finished.
> > > > > Otherwise it's unclear, how to notify a user about failures in
> > service
> > > > > initialisation on new nodes.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we decide to provide such guarantee, then how are we going to do
> > > that?
> > > > > Is procedure, that I described, viable?
> > > > > It requires hacking through the discovery protocol, which is a
> thing,
> > > > that
> > > > > should be avoided.
> > > > > So, maybe there is another way to achieve the same thing?
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > сб, 14 апр. 2018 г. в 1:48, Denis Magda :
> > > 

Re: Service grid redesign

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Denis,

I totally agree with you. I'm just not sure why do we need two methods
(init and execute) that have virtually same semantics. With the new design,
what would be the difference between these methods from user point of view,
and how one would determine what exactly should go in each of them? Unless
I'm missing something, it looks like unnecessary complication.

-Val

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:00 AM, Denis Mekhanikov 
wrote:

> Val,
>
> Service initialisation is not going to happen in the discovery thread.
> It should be done asynchronously, and initialisation results should be sent
> to the coordinator over communication.
> This is described in the IEP:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-
> 17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid#IEP-17:OilChangeinServiceGrid-
> Successfulscenario
>
> *init()* method is a validation step, making sure, that service is ready
> for work.
> And deployment shouldn't be considered successful until *init()* methods
> finish their work on the assigned nodes.
> Also *cancel() *and *init() *methods may be useful if we decide to
> implement moving existing services to new nodes
>  17%3A+Oil+Change+in+Service+Grid#IEP-17:OilChangeinServiceGrid-
> Movingexistingservicestonewnodes>
>  in
> future.
> These methods can be used to save and restore service's state from cache,
> when it is rebalanced to another node.
>
> As Denis said, if we are not going to prevent nodes from starting on
> service failures, then we should at least generate corresponding events.
> Otherwise there won't be any way to react to service initialization
> failures during nodes startup.
>
> Denis
>
> вт, 17 апр. 2018 г. в 6:59, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>:
>
> > I agree we shouldn't do anything synchronously within discovery threads.
> If
> > something goes wrong, we just need to properly notify the user, logging
> and
> > events seem to be right options to achieve that.
> >
> > BTW, with this design I'm not sure init() method makes sense, probably we
> > should deprecate it.
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Denis Magda  wrote:
> >
> > > Denis,
> > >
> > > In general, service initialization shouldn't prevent a node from
> joining
> > > the cluster or slowing down that process. Thus, I would start the
> > > initialization routines only after the node is accepted by the cluster.
> > If
> > > the initialization fails then we need to report a respective message to
> > the
> > > logs and, probably, generate a system event the user can be subscribed
> > to.
> > >
> > > Regardless, of the service initialization time, I think we still need
> to
> > > utilize discovery SPI to avoid problems discussed later.
> > >
> > > Val, others, what do you think about that?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Basically, my question is: at which moment services should be
> deployed
> > on
> > > > connecting nodes?
> > > > Should we reject a node from being included into a topology, if
> > services,
> > > > that are assigned to it, fail to deploy?
> > > >
> > > > It would be good to be sure, that all assigned services are
> initialised
> > > and
> > > > working, when node start is finished.
> > > > Otherwise it's unclear, how to notify a user about failures in
> service
> > > > initialisation on new nodes.
> > > >
> > > > If we decide to provide such guarantee, then how are we going to do
> > that?
> > > > Is procedure, that I described, viable?
> > > > It requires hacking through the discovery protocol, which is a thing,
> > > that
> > > > should be avoided.
> > > > So, maybe there is another way to achieve the same thing?
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > сб, 14 апр. 2018 г. в 1:48, Denis Magda :
> > > >
> > > > > It sounds like it's not a trivial thing to support the automatic
> > > services
> > > > > redeployment after a restart. Let's postpone it for now, guys
> > > > concentrating
> > > > > on more urgent things related to the services.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex, Vladimir,
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you have a look at Denis question about the discovery-based
> > > > > deployment? Guess it's the only one thing that prevents us from the
> > IEP
> > > > > finalization.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 5:30 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> > > dmekhani...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Vladimir,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently we don't save binary metadata to disk, when persistence
> > is
> > > > > > disabled.
> > > > > > But we still persist marshaller mappings for some reason, and I
> > > > > personally
> > > > > > believe, that we shouldn't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I agree, that we should separate data and service persistence
> > > > > > configuration.
> >