Alexei, In general I agree with the given proposal.
However I'd also like to clarify a few things:
1. start() is called in "depends on" relation order.
2. It might have sense to add a runLevel parameter to start(): start(int
runLevel).
3. Seems that we don't need an afterStart() method. Cause we
I've made a small mistake above, the correct sentence is
void stop(); // Stop a component. Invoked in "depends on" relation order.
In the example above, RaftGroup is stopped before the Network.
чт, 3 июн. 2021 г. в 17:36, Alexei Scherbakov :
> Sergey, I'm ok with the runlevel approach.
>
>
Sergey, I'm ok with the runlevel approach.
I've thought about the node/components lifecycle, here my ideas:
1. The Component interface.
Each manageable component must implement it.
2. Define components hierarchy.
Each component can depend on others - this produces component hierarchy
defined by
Hi Sergey,
Sounds interesting, I do agree that it might be beneficial to improve the
lifecycle management in 3.0 - 2.x version is far from perfect.
Regarding your questions:
1. Can this be done via the metastore?
2. I think we should list the run levels that we think should be there, and
then
Hello Igniters,
I would like to start a discussion on evolving IEP-73 [1]. Now it covers a
narrow topic about components dependencies but it makes sense to cover in
the IEP a broader question: how different components should be initialized
to support different modes of an individual node or a
