Re: Sort nodes in the ring in order to minimize the number of reconnections

Alexander, sounds good! Please post updates to ticket and this thread (if necessary) while working. --Yakov

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Hello! Looks like there has not been any activity on the issue since July, so I've taken the issue. I still have a concern regarding the naming: "instanceName" is quite vague in some contexts like IgniteThread, SpringCacheManage etc. I would suggest naming it like "gridInstanceName" or "nodeName"

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Ignite 1.8.0 Released

Sure, Denis, I can write about Redis protocol support. Can you please instruct me about the format and how/where to submit? Roman On Friday, December 30, 2016 8:11 AM, Sally Khudairi wrote: Boop! Sorry about that...indeed, I wrote Roman's name in my notes next to "1.8 release manager?

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Alexander, your point makes sense to me. Please go on with 'igniteInstanceName' and let me review the PR so we can take the final decision. --Yakov

[GitHub] ignite pull request #1396: IGNITE-4493: ODBC: Added missing diagnostic recor...

GitHub user skalashnikov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1396 IGNITE-4493: ODBC: Added missing diagnostic records for error cases You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Ignite 1.8.0 Released

Roman, amazing thanks! You can use any blogging engine you like. After the blog post is ready notify the community and Prachi will send your material to dzone.com and when it’s accepted there we will public it on Ignite’s blogging page (https://ignite.apache.org/blogs.html

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-4514) Test HadoopCommandLineTest.testHiveCommandLine fails

Ivan Veselovsky created IGNITE-4514: --- Summary: Test HadoopCommandLineTest.testHiveCommandLine fails Key: IGNITE-4514 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4514 Project: Ignite I

[GitHub] ignite pull request #1397: Ignite 4515

GitHub user iveselovskiy opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1397 Ignite 4515 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-4515 Alternatively you can review and apply the

Re: PageMemory approach for Ignite 2.0

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Folks, > > I pushed an initial implementation of IGNITE-3477 to ignite-3477 branch for > community review and further discussion. > > Note that the implementation lacks the following features: > - On-heap des

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > Alexander, your point makes sense to me. Please go on with > 'igniteInstanceName' and let me review the PR so we can take the final > decision. > How about just "instanceName"?

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

instanceName is confusing in, for example, SpringCacheManager and several other places. See email from Alexander. Btw, gridName was OK for GridConfiguration:) -- Yakov Zhdanov

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > instanceName is confusing in, for example, SpringCacheManager and several > other places. See email from Alexander. > Not sure why "instanceName" is confusing, but if it is, I would prefer "nodeName" then.

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

To be honest both instanceName and igniteInstanceName sound confusing to me. I still need to go to the documentation to figure out what the hell “instance” is. Personally, if the property was called “nodeName” or “igniteNodeName” then I would’t need to refer to the docs because everyone knows wh

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

'nodeName' sounds like it has to be unique across nodes in topology, which is wrong. I don't think there is a perfect name for this, but 'igniteName' or 'igniteInstanceName' seem to be the best options for me. -Val On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > To be honest both instan

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Valentin Kulichenko > wrote: > > 'nodeName' sounds like it has to be unique across nodes in topology, which > is wrong. If to follow your logic then for me neither ‘igniteInstanceName’ nor ‘igniteName’ makes it clear whether the name has to be unique or not clus

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

What’s about ‘localNodeName’? — Denis > On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:11 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > > >> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Valentin Kulichenko >> wrote: >> >> 'nodeName' sounds like it has to be unique across nodes in topology, which >> is wrong. > > If to follow your logic then for me ne

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > What’s about ‘localNodeName’? > Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it obvious that the name is for the local node?

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

See Val’s concern in the discussion. I’m absolutely fine with ‘nodeName’. — Denis > On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > >> What’s about ‘localNodeName’? >> > > Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it obvious that

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Now I am confused. What is the purpose of this configuration parameter? On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > See Val’s concern in the discussion. I’m absolutely fine with ‘nodeName’. > > — > Denis > > > On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

The parameter specifies a node name which has to be unique per JVM process (if you start multiple nodes in a single process). In my understanding it was mainly introduced to handle these multiple-nodes-per-JVM scenarios. However, several nodes can have the same name cluster wide. — Denis > O

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Well, then may be we should go with one of the below names: processNodeName jvmNodeName runtimeNodeName processScopedNodeName jvmScopedNodeName runtimeScopedNodeName processWideNodeName jvmWideNodeName runtimeWideNodeName Regards, Alexander 31 дек. 2016 г. 12:37 AM пользователь "Denis Magda" на

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Alexander, frankly speaking I'm still for your original proposal - nodeName. The uniqueness specificities can be set in the doc. -- Denis On Friday, December 30, 2016, Alexander Fedotov < alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, then may be we should go with one of the below names: > > proces

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

This name identifies instance of Ignite, in case there are more than one within an application. Here are our API methods around this: // We provide a name and get newly started *Ignite* instance. Ignite ignite = Ignition.start(new IgniteConfiguration().setGridName(name)); // We provide a name and

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName' suits better considering your explanation. -- Denis On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > This name identifies instance of Ignite, in case there are more than one > within an application. Here are o

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

It sounds like it must be unique then. I would propose the following: 1. If user defines the instanceName, then we assign it to the node. 2. If user does not define the instance name, then we have to give it some unique value, like node ID or PID. Will this change be backward compatible,