You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ignite.apache.org by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> on 2017/03/03 08:39:41 UTC
Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing
Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status of this ticket and
further steps?
--Yakov
2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>:
> Done. But it looks like something went wrong since Upsource reports:
> "Review has too many files (1244), aborting".
>
> Also guys, I believe we need to merge this change in short time because
> it's targeted for 2.0 and chances for a conflict are high.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Alexander,
> >
> > Please name the review appropriately and link it in the ticket as
> > described:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pavel
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Created Upsource review for the subject:
> > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I've completed working on IGNITE-3207
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207
> > > >
> > > > Looks like TC test results don't have problems related to my changes
> > > > http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=423955&
> > > > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
> > > >
> > > > Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435/
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Support Pavel’s point of view.
> > > >>
> > > >> Also Alexander please make sure that your changes are merged into
> > > >> ignite-2.0 branch rather than to the master. I think this
> > functionality
> > > >> has to be available in 2.0 first. Finally, please update 2.0
> Migration
> > > >> Guide once you’ve finished with this task:
> > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
> > > >> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
> > > >> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
> > > >>
> > > >> —
> > > >> Denis
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I think we should fix log output as well and replace all "grid"
> > > >> occurences
> > > >> > with "instance".
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Hi,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I think we should leave null as a default value for unnamed
> Ignite
> > > >> >> instances. At least that change should be considered out of the
> > > current
> > > >> >> scope.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> What about naming, I'm also renaming log occurrences of "grid"
> and
> > > >> "grid
> > > >> >> name" where it stands reasonable.
> > > >> >> Are there places in the logging logic where we should prefer name
> > > >> "grid" or
> > > >> >> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or "Ignite instance
> > > >> name" can
> > > >> >> be used without any semantic impact?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > >> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> Okay. From the all said above I suppose "instanceName" should
> work
> > > for
> > > >> >>> IgniteConfiguration and "igniteInstanceName" in all other
> places.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Regards,
> > > >> >>> Alexander
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> 31 дек. 2016 г. 3:43 AM пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <
> > > >> >>> dsetrakyan@apache.org> написал:
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> 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, or should we leave it
> as
> > > >> null if
> > > >> >>> user does not define it?
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> D.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <
> dmagda@gridgain.com
> > >
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName' suits better
> > > considering
> > > >> >>> your
> > > >> >>>> explanation.
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> --
> > > >> >>>> Denis
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >> >>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>> 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 get existing *Ignite* instance.
> > > >> >>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node representation we
> > have
> > > >> >>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId() method for
> > > >> >> identification.
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will have both
> > nodeName
> > > >> and
> > > >> >>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely different meaning
> and
> > > >> used
> > > >> >>> in
> > > >> >>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to understand the
> > > >> >> difference
> > > >> >>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more confusing than
> > current
> > > >> >>>> gridName.
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> -Val
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <
> > dmagda@gridgain.com
> > > >
> > > >> >>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>> 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.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>> 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" <
> > > >> >>>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > >> >>>>>>> написал:
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>> 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
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of this
> configuration
> > > >> >>>> parameter?
> > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > >> >>>> 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 <
> > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > >> >> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it obvious that
> the
> > > >> >> name
> > > >> >>> is
> > > >> >>>>>> for
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> local node?
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> --
> > > >> >> Kind regards,
> > > >> >> Alexander.
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Alexander.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Alexander.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alexander.
>
Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Alexander,
May I ask you to update Apache Ignite 2.0 migration guide?
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
There you need to say that IgniteConfiguration.gridNama parameter has been changed to the other one that behaves this or that way.
—
Denis
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 4:37 AM, Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you Alexander, I merged these changes.
>
> I recommend everybody get latest chages from ignite-2.0.
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> PR updated
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay. Will do it shortly.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alexander,
>>>>
>>>> I see there are conflicts again, could you plase resolve them, I'm going
>>>> to
>>>> review and merge these changes today.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Alex!
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam, can you please also take a look to make sure we catch all
>> possible
>>>>> issues on review? Let's merge this on Monday since this is very
>>>>> conflict-prone change.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Yakov
>>>>>
>>>>> 2017-03-10 12:57 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
>>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> PR updated. Currently no conflicts at
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>>>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. Will take a look.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <
>> yzhdanov@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alexander,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Page https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435 reports several
>>>>>>>> conflicts.
>>>>>>>> Can you please check and resolve if necessary. Then resubmit for
>>>>> review
>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Yakov
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2017-03-03 13:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
>>>>>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi, it's ready for review
>>>>>>>>> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <
>>>> yzhdanov@apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status of this
>>>> ticket
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> further steps?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --Yakov
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
>>>>>>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Done. But it looks like something went wrong since Upsource
>>>>>> reports:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Review has too many files (1244), aborting".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also guys, I believe we need to merge this change in short
>>>> time
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>> it's targeted for 2.0 and chances for a conflict are high.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>>>>>>>> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexander,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please name the review appropriately and link it in the
>>>> ticket
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> described:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
>>>>>>>>>>>> to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pavel
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>>>>>>>>>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Created Upsource review for the subject:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://reviews.ignite.apache.o
>>>> rg/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've completed working on IGNITE-3207
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like TC test results don't have problems
>> related
>>>> to
>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://ci.ignite.apache.org/vi
>>>> ewLog.html?buildId=423955&
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/
>>>>>>>>>> ignite/pull/1435/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <
>>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Support Pavel’s point of view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also Alexander please make sure that your changes
>> are
>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite-2.0 branch rather than to the master. I think
>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has to be available in 2.0 first. Finally, please
>>>> update
>>>>>> 2.0
>>>>>>>>>>> Migration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guide once you’ve finished with this task:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
>>>>> Apache+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+I
>>>> gnite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>>>>>>>>>> ptupitsyn@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should fix log output as well and
>> replace
>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> "grid"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurences
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with "instance".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alexander
>> Fedotov
>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should leave null as a default value
>> for
>>>>>>>> unnamed
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances. At least that change should be
>>>> considered
>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about naming, I'm also renaming log
>>>> occurrences
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> "grid"
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "grid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name" where it stands reasonable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are there places in the logging logic where we
>>>> should
>>>>>>>> prefer
>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "grid" or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or
>>>>> "Ignite
>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name" can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be used without any semantic impact?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander
>>>> Fedotov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. From the all said above I suppose
>>>>> "instanceName"
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration and "igniteInstanceName" in
>>>> all
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>> places.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexander
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 31 дек. 2016 г. 3:43 AM пользователь "Dmitriy
>>>>>> Setrakyan"
>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org> написал:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, or
>>>> should we
>>>>>>>> leave
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> null if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user does not define it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <
>>>>>>>>>>> dmagda@gridgain.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName'
>>>> suits
>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin
>>>> Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 get existing *Ignite*
>>>>>>>> instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node
>>>>>>>> representation
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId()
>>>> method
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will
>>>> have
>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>> nodeName
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely
>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more
>>>>> confusing
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gridName.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <
>>>>>>>>>>>> dmagda@gridgain.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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" <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy
>>>> Setrakyan <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of
>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis
>> Magda
>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis
>>>> Magda <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't
>> it
>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local node?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Alex.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kind regards,
>> Alex.
>>
Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing
Posted by Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>.
Thank you Alexander, I merged these changes.
I recommend everybody get latest chages from ignite-2.0.
Thanks!
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> PR updated
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay. Will do it shortly.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Alexander,
> >>
> >> I see there are conflicts again, could you plase resolve them, I'm going
> >> to
> >> review and merge these changes today.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks, Alex!
> >> >
> >> > Sam, can you please also take a look to make sure we catch all
> possible
> >> > issues on review? Let's merge this on Monday since this is very
> >> > conflict-prone change.
> >> >
> >> > --Yakov
> >> >
> >> > 2017-03-10 12:57 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
> >> > >:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > > PR updated. Currently no conflicts at
> >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Sure. Will take a look.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> yzhdanov@apache.org>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Alexander,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Page https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435 reports several
> >> > > >> conflicts.
> >> > > >> Can you please check and resolve if necessary. Then resubmit for
> >> > review
> >> > > >> again.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --Yakov
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> 2017-03-03 13:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > > >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com>:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > Hi, it's ready for review
> >> > > >> > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> >> yzhdanov@apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > > >> > wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status of this
> >> ticket
> >> > and
> >> > > >> > > further steps?
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > --Yakov
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > 2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
> >> > > >> > > >:
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > > Done. But it looks like something went wrong since Upsource
> >> > > reports:
> >> > > >> > > > "Review has too many files (1244), aborting".
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > Also guys, I believe we need to merge this change in short
> >> time
> >> > > >> because
> >> > > >> > > > it's targeted for 2.0 and chances for a conflict are high.
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> > > >> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > Alexander,
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > Please name the review appropriately and link it in the
> >> ticket
> >> > > as
> >> > > >> > > > > described:
> >> > > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> >> > > >> > > > > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > >> > > > > Pavel
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > > >> > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > Created Upsource review for the subject:
> >> > > >> > > > > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.o
> >> rg/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > > >> > > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > I've completed working on IGNITE-3207
> >> > > >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Looks like TC test results don't have problems
> related
> >> to
> >> > my
> >> > > >> > > changes
> >> > > >> > > > > > > http://ci.ignite.apache.org/vi
> >> ewLog.html?buildId=423955&
> >> > > >> > > > > > > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/
> >> > > >> > > ignite/pull/1435/
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <
> >> > > >> dmagda@apache.org>
> >> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> Support Pavel’s point of view.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> Also Alexander please make sure that your changes
> are
> >> > > merged
> >> > > >> > into
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> ignite-2.0 branch rather than to the master. I think
> >> this
> >> > > >> > > > > functionality
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> has to be available in 2.0 first. Finally, please
> >> update
> >> > > 2.0
> >> > > >> > > > Migration
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> Guide once you’ve finished with this task:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> >> > Apache+
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <
> >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+I
> >> gnite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> —
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> Denis
> >> > > >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> > > >> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> > I think we should fix log output as well and
> replace
> >> > all
> >> > > >> > "grid"
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> occurences
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> > with "instance".
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alexander
> Fedotov
> >> <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi,
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I think we should leave null as a default value
> for
> >> > > >> unnamed
> >> > > >> > > > Ignite
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> instances. At least that change should be
> >> considered
> >> > out
> >> > > >> of
> >> > > >> > the
> >> > > >> > > > > > current
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> scope.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> What about naming, I'm also renaming log
> >> occurrences
> >> > of
> >> > > >> > "grid"
> >> > > >> > > > and
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> "grid
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> name" where it stands reasonable.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Are there places in the logging logic where we
> >> should
> >> > > >> prefer
> >> > > >> > > name
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> "grid" or
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or
> >> > "Ignite
> >> > > >> > > instance
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> name" can
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> be used without any semantic impact?
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander
> >> Fedotov <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> Okay. From the all said above I suppose
> >> > "instanceName"
> >> > > >> > should
> >> > > >> > > > work
> >> > > >> > > > > > for
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> IgniteConfiguration and "igniteInstanceName" in
> >> all
> >> > > other
> >> > > >> > > > places.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> Regards,
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> Alexander
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> 31 дек. 2016 г. 3:43 AM пользователь "Dmitriy
> >> > > Setrakyan"
> >> > > >> <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> dsetrakyan@apache.org> написал:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> 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, or
> >> should we
> >> > > >> leave
> >> > > >> > it
> >> > > >> > > > as
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> null if
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> user does not define it?
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> D.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <
> >> > > >> > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName'
> >> suits
> >> > > >> better
> >> > > >> > > > > > considering
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> your
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> explanation.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> --
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> Denis
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin
> >> Kulichenko <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> 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 get existing *Ignite*
> >> > > >> instance.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node
> >> > > >> representation
> >> > > >> > > we
> >> > > >> > > > > have
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId()
> >> method
> >> > > for
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> identification.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will
> >> have
> >> > > >> both
> >> > > >> > > > > nodeName
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> and
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely
> >> > different
> >> > > >> > meaning
> >> > > >> > > > and
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> used
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> in
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to
> >> > > understand
> >> > > >> > the
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> difference
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more
> >> > confusing
> >> > > >> than
> >> > > >> > > > > current
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> gridName.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> -Val
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <
> >> > > >> > > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> 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.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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" <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> dmagda@apache.org>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> написал:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy
> >> Setrakyan <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of
> >> this
> >> > > >> > > > configuration
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> parameter?
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis
> Magda
> >> <
> >> > > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> 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 <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis
> >> Magda <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> dmagda@apache.org>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't
> it
> >> > > obvious
> >> > > >> > that
> >> > > >> > > > the
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> name
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> is
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> for
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> local node?
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> --
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Kind regards,
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Alexander.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > --
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Kind regards,
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Alexander.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > --
> >> > > >> > > > > > Kind regards,
> >> > > >> > > > > > Alexander.
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > --
> >> > > >> > > > Kind regards,
> >> > > >> > > > Alexander.
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > --
> >> > > >> > Kind regards,
> >> > > >> > Alexander.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Kind regards,
> >> > > > Alexander.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Kind regards,
> >> > > Alexander.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> > Alex.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alex.
>
Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing
Posted by Alexander Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
PR updated
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay. Will do it shortly.
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Alexander,
>>
>> I see there are conflicts again, could you plase resolve them, I'm going
>> to
>> review and merge these changes today.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks, Alex!
>> >
>> > Sam, can you please also take a look to make sure we catch all possible
>> > issues on review? Let's merge this on Monday since this is very
>> > conflict-prone change.
>> >
>> > --Yakov
>> >
>> > 2017-03-10 12:57 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
>> > >:
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > > PR updated. Currently no conflicts at
>> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Sure. Will take a look.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Alexander,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Page https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435 reports several
>> > > >> conflicts.
>> > > >> Can you please check and resolve if necessary. Then resubmit for
>> > review
>> > > >> again.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --Yakov
>> > > >>
>> > > >> 2017-03-03 13:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
>> > > >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com>:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > Hi, it's ready for review
>> > > >> > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <
>> yzhdanov@apache.org
>> > >
>> > > >> > wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status of this
>> ticket
>> > and
>> > > >> > > further steps?
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > --Yakov
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > 2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
>> > > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
>> > > >> > > >:
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > > Done. But it looks like something went wrong since Upsource
>> > > reports:
>> > > >> > > > "Review has too many files (1244), aborting".
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > Also guys, I believe we need to merge this change in short
>> time
>> > > >> because
>> > > >> > > > it's targeted for 2.0 and chances for a conflict are high.
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > >> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
>> > > >> > > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > > Alexander,
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > Please name the review appropriately and link it in the
>> ticket
>> > > as
>> > > >> > > > > described:
>> > > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
>> > > >> > > > > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > >> > > > > Pavel
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> > > >> > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > Hi,
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > Created Upsource review for the subject:
>> > > >> > > > > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.o
>> rg/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> > > >> > > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > I've completed working on IGNITE-3207
>> > > >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > Looks like TC test results don't have problems related
>> to
>> > my
>> > > >> > > changes
>> > > >> > > > > > > http://ci.ignite.apache.org/vi
>> ewLog.html?buildId=423955&
>> > > >> > > > > > > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/
>> > > >> > > ignite/pull/1435/
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <
>> > > >> dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > >> Support Pavel’s point of view.
>> > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> Also Alexander please make sure that your changes are
>> > > merged
>> > > >> > into
>> > > >> > > > > > >> ignite-2.0 branch rather than to the master. I think
>> this
>> > > >> > > > > functionality
>> > > >> > > > > > >> has to be available in 2.0 first. Finally, please
>> update
>> > > 2.0
>> > > >> > > > Migration
>> > > >> > > > > > >> Guide once you’ve finished with this task:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
>> > Apache+
>> > > >> > > > > > >> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <
>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
>> > > >> > > > > > >> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+I
>> gnite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
>> > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> —
>> > > >> > > > > > >> Denis
>> > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > >> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > > > > > >> > I think we should fix log output as well and replace
>> > all
>> > > >> > "grid"
>> > > >> > > > > > >> occurences
>> > > >> > > > > > >> > with "instance".
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alexander Fedotov
>> <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi,
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I think we should leave null as a default value for
>> > > >> unnamed
>> > > >> > > > Ignite
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> instances. At least that change should be
>> considered
>> > out
>> > > >> of
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > > > > > current
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> scope.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> What about naming, I'm also renaming log
>> occurrences
>> > of
>> > > >> > "grid"
>> > > >> > > > and
>> > > >> > > > > > >> "grid
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> name" where it stands reasonable.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Are there places in the logging logic where we
>> should
>> > > >> prefer
>> > > >> > > name
>> > > >> > > > > > >> "grid" or
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or
>> > "Ignite
>> > > >> > > instance
>> > > >> > > > > > >> name" can
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> be used without any semantic impact?
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander
>> Fedotov <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> Okay. From the all said above I suppose
>> > "instanceName"
>> > > >> > should
>> > > >> > > > work
>> > > >> > > > > > for
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> IgniteConfiguration and "igniteInstanceName" in
>> all
>> > > other
>> > > >> > > > places.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> Regards,
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> Alexander
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> 31 дек. 2016 г. 3:43 AM пользователь "Dmitriy
>> > > Setrakyan"
>> > > >> <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> dsetrakyan@apache.org> написал:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> 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, or
>> should we
>> > > >> leave
>> > > >> > it
>> > > >> > > > as
>> > > >> > > > > > >> null if
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> user does not define it?
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> D.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <
>> > > >> > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName'
>> suits
>> > > >> better
>> > > >> > > > > > considering
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> your
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> explanation.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> --
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> Denis
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin
>> Kulichenko <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> 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 get existing *Ignite*
>> > > >> instance.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node
>> > > >> representation
>> > > >> > > we
>> > > >> > > > > have
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId()
>> method
>> > > for
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> identification.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will
>> have
>> > > >> both
>> > > >> > > > > nodeName
>> > > >> > > > > > >> and
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely
>> > different
>> > > >> > meaning
>> > > >> > > > and
>> > > >> > > > > > >> used
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> in
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to
>> > > understand
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> difference
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more
>> > confusing
>> > > >> than
>> > > >> > > > > current
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> gridName.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> -Val
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <
>> > > >> > > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> 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.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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" <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> написал:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy
>> Setrakyan <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of
>> this
>> > > >> > > > configuration
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> parameter?
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda
>> <
>> > > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> 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 <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis
>> Magda <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it
>> > > obvious
>> > > >> > that
>> > > >> > > > the
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> name
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> is
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> for
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> local node?
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> --
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Kind regards,
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Alexander.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > --
>> > > >> > > > > > > Kind regards,
>> > > >> > > > > > > Alexander.
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > --
>> > > >> > > > > > Kind regards,
>> > > >> > > > > > Alexander.
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > --
>> > > >> > > > Kind regards,
>> > > >> > > > Alexander.
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > --
>> > > >> > Kind regards,
>> > > >> > Alexander.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Kind regards,
>> > > > Alexander.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Kind regards,
>> > > Alexander.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alex.
>
--
Kind regards,
Alex.
Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing
Posted by Alexander Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
Okay. Will do it shortly.
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> Alexander,
>
> I see there are conflicts again, could you plase resolve them, I'm going to
> review and merge these changes today.
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Alex!
> >
> > Sam, can you please also take a look to make sure we catch all possible
> > issues on review? Let's merge this on Monday since this is very
> > conflict-prone change.
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
> > 2017-03-10 12:57 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > PR updated. Currently no conflicts at
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sure. Will take a look.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Alexander,
> > > >>
> > > >> Page https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435 reports several
> > > >> conflicts.
> > > >> Can you please check and resolve if necessary. Then resubmit for
> > review
> > > >> again.
> > > >>
> > > >> --Yakov
> > > >>
> > > >> 2017-03-03 13:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> > > >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com>:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi, it's ready for review
> > > >> > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> yzhdanov@apache.org
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status of this ticket
> > and
> > > >> > > further steps?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > --Yakov
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > 2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> > > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
> > > >> > > >:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Done. But it looks like something went wrong since Upsource
> > > reports:
> > > >> > > > "Review has too many files (1244), aborting".
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Also guys, I believe we need to merge this change in short
> time
> > > >> because
> > > >> > > > it's targeted for 2.0 and chances for a conflict are high.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > >> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Alexander,
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Please name the review appropriately and link it in the
> ticket
> > > as
> > > >> > > > > described:
> > > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > >> > > > > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > Pavel
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > >> > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Hi,
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Created Upsource review for the subject:
> > > >> > > > > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > >> > > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > I've completed working on IGNITE-3207
> > > >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Looks like TC test results don't have problems related
> to
> > my
> > > >> > > changes
> > > >> > > > > > > http://ci.ignite.apache.org/
> viewLog.html?buildId=423955&
> > > >> > > > > > > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/
> > > >> > > ignite/pull/1435/
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <
> > > >> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> Support Pavel’s point of view.
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> Also Alexander please make sure that your changes are
> > > merged
> > > >> > into
> > > >> > > > > > >> ignite-2.0 branch rather than to the master. I think
> this
> > > >> > > > > functionality
> > > >> > > > > > >> has to be available in 2.0 first. Finally, please
> update
> > > 2.0
> > > >> > > > Migration
> > > >> > > > > > >> Guide once you’ve finished with this task:
> > > >> > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > Apache+
> > > >> > > > > > >> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
> > > >> > > > > > >> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> —
> > > >> > > > > > >> Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > >> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> > I think we should fix log output as well and replace
> > all
> > > >> > "grid"
> > > >> > > > > > >> occurences
> > > >> > > > > > >> > with "instance".
> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > >> > > > > > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I think we should leave null as a default value for
> > > >> unnamed
> > > >> > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> instances. At least that change should be considered
> > out
> > > >> of
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > current
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> scope.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> What about naming, I'm also renaming log occurrences
> > of
> > > >> > "grid"
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> "grid
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> name" where it stands reasonable.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Are there places in the logging logic where we
> should
> > > >> prefer
> > > >> > > name
> > > >> > > > > > >> "grid" or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or
> > "Ignite
> > > >> > > instance
> > > >> > > > > > >> name" can
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> be used without any semantic impact?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander Fedotov
> <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> Okay. From the all said above I suppose
> > "instanceName"
> > > >> > should
> > > >> > > > work
> > > >> > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> IgniteConfiguration and "igniteInstanceName" in all
> > > other
> > > >> > > > places.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> Regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> Alexander
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> 31 дек. 2016 г. 3:43 AM пользователь "Dmitriy
> > > Setrakyan"
> > > >> <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> dsetrakyan@apache.org> написал:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> 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, or should
> we
> > > >> leave
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> null if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> user does not define it?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> D.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > >> > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName' suits
> > > >> better
> > > >> > > > > > considering
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> your
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> explanation.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin Kulichenko
> <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> 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 get existing *Ignite*
> > > >> instance.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node
> > > >> representation
> > > >> > > we
> > > >> > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId()
> method
> > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> identification.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will
> have
> > > >> both
> > > >> > > > > nodeName
> > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely
> > different
> > > >> > meaning
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> used
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to
> > > understand
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> difference
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more
> > confusing
> > > >> than
> > > >> > > > > current
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> gridName.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> -Val
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > >> > > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> 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.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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" <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> написал:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy
> Setrakyan <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of this
> > > >> > > > configuration
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> parameter?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> 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 <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis
> Magda <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it
> > > obvious
> > > >> > that
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> name
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> local node?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Kind regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Alexander.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > >> > > > > > > Alexander.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > >> > > > > > Alexander.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > Kind regards,
> > > >> > > > Alexander.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Kind regards,
> > > >> > Alexander.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Alexander.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Alexander.
> > >
> >
>
--
Kind regards,
Alex.
Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing
Posted by Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>.
Alexander,
I see there are conflicts again, could you plase resolve them, I'm going to
review and merge these changes today.
Thanks!
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks, Alex!
>
> Sam, can you please also take a look to make sure we catch all possible
> issues on review? Let's merge this on Monday since this is very
> conflict-prone change.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2017-03-10 12:57 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Hi,
> > PR updated. Currently no conflicts at
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sure. Will take a look.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Alexander,
> > >>
> > >> Page https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435 reports several
> > >> conflicts.
> > >> Can you please check and resolve if necessary. Then resubmit for
> review
> > >> again.
> > >>
> > >> --Yakov
> > >>
> > >> 2017-03-03 13:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> > >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi, it's ready for review
> > >> > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status of this ticket
> and
> > >> > > further steps?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --Yakov
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
> > >> > > >:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Done. But it looks like something went wrong since Upsource
> > reports:
> > >> > > > "Review has too many files (1244), aborting".
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Also guys, I believe we need to merge this change in short time
> > >> because
> > >> > > > it's targeted for 2.0 and chances for a conflict are high.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > >> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Alexander,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Please name the review appropriately and link it in the ticket
> > as
> > >> > > > > described:
> > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > >> > > > > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > Pavel
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > >> > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Hi,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Created Upsource review for the subject:
> > >> > > > > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > >> > > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Hi,
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I've completed working on IGNITE-3207
> > >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Looks like TC test results don't have problems related to
> my
> > >> > > changes
> > >> > > > > > > http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=423955&
> > >> > > > > > > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/
> > >> > > ignite/pull/1435/
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <
> > >> dmagda@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> Support Pavel’s point of view.
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> Also Alexander please make sure that your changes are
> > merged
> > >> > into
> > >> > > > > > >> ignite-2.0 branch rather than to the master. I think this
> > >> > > > > functionality
> > >> > > > > > >> has to be available in 2.0 first. Finally, please update
> > 2.0
> > >> > > > Migration
> > >> > > > > > >> Guide once you’ve finished with this task:
> > >> > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> Apache+
> > >> > > > > > >> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
> > >> > > > > > >> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> —
> > >> > > > > > >> Denis
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > >> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > I think we should fix log output as well and replace
> all
> > >> > "grid"
> > >> > > > > > >> occurences
> > >> > > > > > >> > with "instance".
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > >> > > > > > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi,
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> I think we should leave null as a default value for
> > >> unnamed
> > >> > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> instances. At least that change should be considered
> out
> > >> of
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > current
> > >> > > > > > >> >> scope.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> What about naming, I'm also renaming log occurrences
> of
> > >> > "grid"
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> "grid
> > >> > > > > > >> >> name" where it stands reasonable.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Are there places in the logging logic where we should
> > >> prefer
> > >> > > name
> > >> > > > > > >> "grid" or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or
> "Ignite
> > >> > > instance
> > >> > > > > > >> name" can
> > >> > > > > > >> >> be used without any semantic impact?
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>> Okay. From the all said above I suppose
> "instanceName"
> > >> > should
> > >> > > > work
> > >> > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >>> IgniteConfiguration and "igniteInstanceName" in all
> > other
> > >> > > > places.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>> Regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >>> Alexander
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>> 31 дек. 2016 г. 3:43 AM пользователь "Dmitriy
> > Setrakyan"
> > >> <
> > >> > > > > > >> >>> dsetrakyan@apache.org> написал:
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>> 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, or should we
> > >> leave
> > >> > it
> > >> > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> null if
> > >> > > > > > >> >>> user does not define it?
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>> D.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <
> > >> > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName' suits
> > >> better
> > >> > > > > > considering
> > >> > > > > > >> >>> your
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> explanation.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> --
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> 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 get existing *Ignite*
> > >> instance.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node
> > >> representation
> > >> > > we
> > >> > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId() method
> > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> identification.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will have
> > >> both
> > >> > > > > nodeName
> > >> > > > > > >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely
> different
> > >> > meaning
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> used
> > >> > > > > > >> >>> in
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to
> > understand
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> difference
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more
> confusing
> > >> than
> > >> > > > > current
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> gridName.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> -Val
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <
> > >> > > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> 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.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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" <
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> написал:
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of this
> > >> > > > configuration
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> parameter?
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda <
> > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> 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 <
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> dmagda@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it
> > obvious
> > >> > that
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> name
> > >> > > > > > >> >>> is
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> local node?
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Kind regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Alexander.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > >> > > > > > > Alexander.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > >> > > > > > Alexander.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Kind regards,
> > >> > > > Alexander.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Kind regards,
> > >> > Alexander.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Alexander.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> > Alexander.
> >
>
Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Thanks, Alex!
Sam, can you please also take a look to make sure we catch all possible
issues on review? Let's merge this on Monday since this is very
conflict-prone change.
--Yakov
2017-03-10 12:57 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
> PR updated. Currently no conflicts at
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435.
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure. Will take a look.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Alexander,
> >>
> >> Page https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435 reports several
> >> conflicts.
> >> Can you please check and resolve if necessary. Then resubmit for review
> >> again.
> >>
> >> --Yakov
> >>
> >> 2017-03-03 13:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > Hi, it's ready for review
> >> > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status of this ticket and
> >> > > further steps?
> >> > >
> >> > > --Yakov
> >> > >
> >> > > 2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
> >> > > >:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Done. But it looks like something went wrong since Upsource
> reports:
> >> > > > "Review has too many files (1244), aborting".
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Also guys, I believe we need to merge this change in short time
> >> because
> >> > > > it's targeted for 2.0 and chances for a conflict are high.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Alexander,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Please name the review appropriately and link it in the ticket
> as
> >> > > > > described:
> >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> >> > > > > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > Pavel
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Created Upsource review for the subject:
> >> > > > > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I've completed working on IGNITE-3207
> >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Looks like TC test results don't have problems related to my
> >> > > changes
> >> > > > > > > http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=423955&
> >> > > > > > > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/
> >> > > ignite/pull/1435/
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <
> >> dmagda@apache.org>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> Support Pavel’s point of view.
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> Also Alexander please make sure that your changes are
> merged
> >> > into
> >> > > > > > >> ignite-2.0 branch rather than to the master. I think this
> >> > > > > functionality
> >> > > > > > >> has to be available in 2.0 first. Finally, please update
> 2.0
> >> > > > Migration
> >> > > > > > >> Guide once you’ve finished with this task:
> >> > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
> >> > > > > > >> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
> >> > > > > > >> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> —
> >> > > > > > >> Denis
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > I think we should fix log output as well and replace all
> >> > "grid"
> >> > > > > > >> occurences
> >> > > > > > >> > with "instance".
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > > > > > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> Hi,
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> I think we should leave null as a default value for
> >> unnamed
> >> > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> instances. At least that change should be considered out
> >> of
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > current
> >> > > > > > >> >> scope.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> What about naming, I'm also renaming log occurrences of
> >> > "grid"
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> "grid
> >> > > > > > >> >> name" where it stands reasonable.
> >> > > > > > >> >> Are there places in the logging logic where we should
> >> prefer
> >> > > name
> >> > > > > > >> "grid" or
> >> > > > > > >> >> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or "Ignite
> >> > > instance
> >> > > > > > >> name" can
> >> > > > > > >> >> be used without any semantic impact?
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > > > > > >> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >>> Okay. From the all said above I suppose "instanceName"
> >> > should
> >> > > > work
> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >>> IgniteConfiguration and "igniteInstanceName" in all
> other
> >> > > > places.
> >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>> Regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >>> Alexander
> >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>> 31 дек. 2016 г. 3:43 AM пользователь "Dmitriy
> Setrakyan"
> >> <
> >> > > > > > >> >>> dsetrakyan@apache.org> написал:
> >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>> 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, or should we
> >> leave
> >> > it
> >> > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> null if
> >> > > > > > >> >>> user does not define it?
> >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>> D.
> >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <
> >> > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName' suits
> >> better
> >> > > > > > considering
> >> > > > > > >> >>> your
> >> > > > > > >> >>>> explanation.
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>> --
> >> > > > > > >> >>>> Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> > > > > > >> >>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>> 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 get existing *Ignite*
> >> instance.
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node
> >> representation
> >> > > we
> >> > > > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId() method
> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> identification.
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will have
> >> both
> >> > > > > nodeName
> >> > > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely different
> >> > meaning
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> used
> >> > > > > > >> >>> in
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to
> understand
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> difference
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more confusing
> >> than
> >> > > > > current
> >> > > > > > >> >>>> gridName.
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>> -Val
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <
> >> > > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> 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.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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" <
> >> > > > > > >> >>>> dmagda@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> написал:
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> >> > > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of this
> >> > > > configuration
> >> > > > > > >> >>>> parameter?
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda <
> >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>> 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 <
> >> > > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda <
> >> > > > > > >> >> dmagda@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it
> obvious
> >> > that
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> name
> >> > > > > > >> >>> is
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> for
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> local node?
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> --
> >> > > > > > >> >> Kind regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> Alexander.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > Kind regards,
> >> > > > > > > Alexander.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > Kind regards,
> >> > > > > > Alexander.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Kind regards,
> >> > > > Alexander.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Kind regards,
> >> > Alexander.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> > Alexander.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alexander.
>
Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing
Posted by Alexander Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
PR updated. Currently no conflicts at
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure. Will take a look.
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Alexander,
>>
>> Page https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435 reports several
>> conflicts.
>> Can you please check and resolve if necessary. Then resubmit for review
>> again.
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2017-03-03 13:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Hi, it's ready for review
>> > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status of this ticket and
>> > > further steps?
>> > >
>> > > --Yakov
>> > >
>> > > 2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
>> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
>> > > >:
>> > >
>> > > > Done. But it looks like something went wrong since Upsource reports:
>> > > > "Review has too many files (1244), aborting".
>> > > >
>> > > > Also guys, I believe we need to merge this change in short time
>> because
>> > > > it's targeted for 2.0 and chances for a conflict are high.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Alexander,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Please name the review appropriately and link it in the ticket as
>> > > > > described:
>> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
>> > > > > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > Pavel
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Created Upsource review for the subject:
>> > > > > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> > > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I've completed working on IGNITE-3207
>> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Looks like TC test results don't have problems related to my
>> > > changes
>> > > > > > > http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=423955&
>> > > > > > > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/
>> > > ignite/pull/1435/
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <
>> dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> Support Pavel’s point of view.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Also Alexander please make sure that your changes are merged
>> > into
>> > > > > > >> ignite-2.0 branch rather than to the master. I think this
>> > > > > functionality
>> > > > > > >> has to be available in 2.0 first. Finally, please update 2.0
>> > > > Migration
>> > > > > > >> Guide once you’ve finished with this task:
>> > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
>> > > > > > >> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
>> > > > > > >> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> —
>> > > > > > >> Denis
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > I think we should fix log output as well and replace all
>> > "grid"
>> > > > > > >> occurences
>> > > > > > >> > with "instance".
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> > > > > > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> Hi,
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> I think we should leave null as a default value for
>> unnamed
>> > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> instances. At least that change should be considered out
>> of
>> > the
>> > > > > > current
>> > > > > > >> >> scope.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> What about naming, I'm also renaming log occurrences of
>> > "grid"
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> "grid
>> > > > > > >> >> name" where it stands reasonable.
>> > > > > > >> >> Are there places in the logging logic where we should
>> prefer
>> > > name
>> > > > > > >> "grid" or
>> > > > > > >> >> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or "Ignite
>> > > instance
>> > > > > > >> name" can
>> > > > > > >> >> be used without any semantic impact?
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> > > > > > >> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>> Okay. From the all said above I suppose "instanceName"
>> > should
>> > > > work
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >>> IgniteConfiguration and "igniteInstanceName" in all other
>> > > > places.
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> Regards,
>> > > > > > >> >>> Alexander
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> 31 дек. 2016 г. 3:43 AM пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan"
>> <
>> > > > > > >> >>> dsetrakyan@apache.org> написал:
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> 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, or should we
>> leave
>> > it
>> > > > as
>> > > > > > >> null if
>> > > > > > >> >>> user does not define it?
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> D.
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <
>> > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName' suits
>> better
>> > > > > > considering
>> > > > > > >> >>> your
>> > > > > > >> >>>> explanation.
>> > > > > > >> >>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>> --
>> > > > > > >> >>>> Denis
>> > > > > > >> >>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > > > > >> >>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>>>> 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 get existing *Ignite*
>> instance.
>> > > > > > >> >>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node
>> representation
>> > > we
>> > > > > have
>> > > > > > >> >>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId() method for
>> > > > > > >> >> identification.
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will have
>> both
>> > > > > nodeName
>> > > > > > >> and
>> > > > > > >> >>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely different
>> > meaning
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> used
>> > > > > > >> >>> in
>> > > > > > >> >>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to understand
>> > the
>> > > > > > >> >> difference
>> > > > > > >> >>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more confusing
>> than
>> > > > > current
>> > > > > > >> >>>> gridName.
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>> -Val
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <
>> > > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>> 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.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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" <
>> > > > > > >> >>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> написал:
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
>> > > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of this
>> > > > configuration
>> > > > > > >> >>>> parameter?
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda <
>> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >> >>>> 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 <
>> > > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda <
>> > > > > > >> >> dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it obvious
>> > that
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> name
>> > > > > > >> >>> is
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>> for
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> local node?
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> --
>> > > > > > >> >> Kind regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> Alexander.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Kind regards,
>> > > > > > > Alexander.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Kind regards,
>> > > > > > Alexander.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Kind regards,
>> > > > Alexander.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Kind regards,
>> > Alexander.
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alexander.
>
--
Kind regards,
Alexander.
Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing
Posted by Alexander Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
Sure. Will take a look.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Alexander,
>
> Page https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435 reports several conflicts.
> Can you please check and resolve if necessary. Then resubmit for review
> again.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2017-03-03 13:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Hi, it's ready for review
> > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status of this ticket and
> > > further steps?
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> > > 2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Done. But it looks like something went wrong since Upsource reports:
> > > > "Review has too many files (1244), aborting".
> > > >
> > > > Also guys, I believe we need to merge this change in short time
> because
> > > > it's targeted for 2.0 and chances for a conflict are high.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Alexander,
> > > > >
> > > > > Please name the review appropriately and link it in the ticket as
> > > > > described:
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > > > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Pavel
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Created Upsource review for the subject:
> > > > > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've completed working on IGNITE-3207
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looks like TC test results don't have problems related to my
> > > changes
> > > > > > > http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=423955&
> > > > > > > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/
> > > ignite/pull/1435/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Support Pavel’s point of view.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Also Alexander please make sure that your changes are merged
> > into
> > > > > > >> ignite-2.0 branch rather than to the master. I think this
> > > > > functionality
> > > > > > >> has to be available in 2.0 first. Finally, please update 2.0
> > > > Migration
> > > > > > >> Guide once you’ve finished with this task:
> > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
> > > > > > >> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
> > > > > > >> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> —
> > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I think we should fix log output as well and replace all
> > "grid"
> > > > > > >> occurences
> > > > > > >> > with "instance".
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > > > > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> Hi,
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> I think we should leave null as a default value for unnamed
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> instances. At least that change should be considered out of
> > the
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > >> >> scope.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> What about naming, I'm also renaming log occurrences of
> > "grid"
> > > > and
> > > > > > >> "grid
> > > > > > >> >> name" where it stands reasonable.
> > > > > > >> >> Are there places in the logging logic where we should
> prefer
> > > name
> > > > > > >> "grid" or
> > > > > > >> >> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or "Ignite
> > > instance
> > > > > > >> name" can
> > > > > > >> >> be used without any semantic impact?
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > > > > >> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >>> Okay. From the all said above I suppose "instanceName"
> > should
> > > > work
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >>> IgniteConfiguration and "igniteInstanceName" in all other
> > > > places.
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>> Regards,
> > > > > > >> >>> Alexander
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>> 31 дек. 2016 г. 3:43 AM пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <
> > > > > > >> >>> dsetrakyan@apache.org> написал:
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>> 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, or should we
> leave
> > it
> > > > as
> > > > > > >> null if
> > > > > > >> >>> user does not define it?
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>> D.
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName' suits better
> > > > > > considering
> > > > > > >> >>> your
> > > > > > >> >>>> explanation.
> > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>> --
> > > > > > >> >>>> Denis
> > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > >> >>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>>>> 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 get existing *Ignite* instance.
> > > > > > >> >>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node
> representation
> > > we
> > > > > have
> > > > > > >> >>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId() method for
> > > > > > >> >> identification.
> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will have both
> > > > > nodeName
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely different
> > meaning
> > > > and
> > > > > > >> used
> > > > > > >> >>> in
> > > > > > >> >>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to understand
> > the
> > > > > > >> >> difference
> > > > > > >> >>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more confusing
> than
> > > > > current
> > > > > > >> >>>> gridName.
> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>> -Val
> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>> 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.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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" <
> > > > > > >> >>>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> написал:
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of this
> > > > configuration
> > > > > > >> >>>> parameter?
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> >>>> 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 <
> > > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > > > > >> >> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it obvious
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> name
> > > > > > >> >>> is
> > > > > > >> >>>>>> for
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> local node?
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> --
> > > > > > >> >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > >> >> Alexander.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > Alexander.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > Alexander.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Alexander.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> > Alexander.
> >
>
--
Kind regards,
Alexander.
Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Alexander,
Page https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435 reports several conflicts.
Can you please check and resolve if necessary. Then resubmit for review
again.
--Yakov
2017-03-03 13:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>:
> Hi, it's ready for review
> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status of this ticket and
> > further steps?
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
> > 2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <
> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Done. But it looks like something went wrong since Upsource reports:
> > > "Review has too many files (1244), aborting".
> > >
> > > Also guys, I believe we need to merge this change in short time because
> > > it's targeted for 2.0 and chances for a conflict are high.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alexander,
> > > >
> > > > Please name the review appropriately and link it in the ticket as
> > > > described:
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Pavel
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Created Upsource review for the subject:
> > > > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've completed working on IGNITE-3207
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looks like TC test results don't have problems related to my
> > changes
> > > > > > http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=423955&
> > > > > > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/
> > ignite/pull/1435/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Support Pavel’s point of view.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Also Alexander please make sure that your changes are merged
> into
> > > > > >> ignite-2.0 branch rather than to the master. I think this
> > > > functionality
> > > > > >> has to be available in 2.0 first. Finally, please update 2.0
> > > Migration
> > > > > >> Guide once you’ve finished with this task:
> > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
> > > > > >> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
> > > > > >> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> —
> > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I think we should fix log output as well and replace all
> "grid"
> > > > > >> occurences
> > > > > >> > with "instance".
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > > > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> Hi,
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> I think we should leave null as a default value for unnamed
> > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> instances. At least that change should be considered out of
> the
> > > > > current
> > > > > >> >> scope.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> What about naming, I'm also renaming log occurrences of
> "grid"
> > > and
> > > > > >> "grid
> > > > > >> >> name" where it stands reasonable.
> > > > > >> >> Are there places in the logging logic where we should prefer
> > name
> > > > > >> "grid" or
> > > > > >> >> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or "Ignite
> > instance
> > > > > >> name" can
> > > > > >> >> be used without any semantic impact?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > > > >> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>> Okay. From the all said above I suppose "instanceName"
> should
> > > work
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> >>> IgniteConfiguration and "igniteInstanceName" in all other
> > > places.
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>> Regards,
> > > > > >> >>> Alexander
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>> 31 дек. 2016 г. 3:43 AM пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <
> > > > > >> >>> dsetrakyan@apache.org> написал:
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>> 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, or should we leave
> it
> > > as
> > > > > >> null if
> > > > > >> >>> user does not define it?
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>> D.
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > dmagda@gridgain.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName' suits better
> > > > > considering
> > > > > >> >>> your
> > > > > >> >>>> explanation.
> > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > >> >>>> --
> > > > > >> >>>> Denis
> > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > >> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > >> >>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>> 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 get existing *Ignite* instance.
> > > > > >> >>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node representation
> > we
> > > > have
> > > > > >> >>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId() method for
> > > > > >> >> identification.
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will have both
> > > > nodeName
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely different
> meaning
> > > and
> > > > > >> used
> > > > > >> >>> in
> > > > > >> >>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to understand
> the
> > > > > >> >> difference
> > > > > >> >>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more confusing than
> > > > current
> > > > > >> >>>> gridName.
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> -Val
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > > dmagda@gridgain.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>> 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.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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" <
> > > > > >> >>>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>> написал:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of this
> > > configuration
> > > > > >> >>>> parameter?
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > >> >>>> 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 <
> > > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > > > >> >> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it obvious
> that
> > > the
> > > > > >> >> name
> > > > > >> >>> is
> > > > > >> >>>>>> for
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> local node?
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> --
> > > > > >> >> Kind regards,
> > > > > >> >> Alexander.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > Alexander.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > Alexander.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Alexander.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alexander.
>
Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing
Posted by Alexander Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
Hi, it's ready for review
http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status of this ticket and
> further steps?
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov <alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Done. But it looks like something went wrong since Upsource reports:
> > "Review has too many files (1244), aborting".
> >
> > Also guys, I believe we need to merge this change in short time because
> > it's targeted for 2.0 and chances for a conflict are high.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Alexander,
> > >
> > > Please name the review appropriately and link it in the ticket as
> > > described:
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Pavel
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Created Upsource review for the subject:
> > > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've completed working on IGNITE-3207
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207
> > > > >
> > > > > Looks like TC test results don't have problems related to my
> changes
> > > > > http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=423955&
> > > > > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
> > > > >
> > > > > Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/
> ignite/pull/1435/
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Support Pavel’s point of view.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Also Alexander please make sure that your changes are merged into
> > > > >> ignite-2.0 branch rather than to the master. I think this
> > > functionality
> > > > >> has to be available in 2.0 first. Finally, please update 2.0
> > Migration
> > > > >> Guide once you’ve finished with this task:
> > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+
> > > > >> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
> > > > >> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> —
> > > > >> Denis
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I think we should fix log output as well and replace all "grid"
> > > > >> occurences
> > > > >> > with "instance".
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > > >> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Hi,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I think we should leave null as a default value for unnamed
> > Ignite
> > > > >> >> instances. At least that change should be considered out of the
> > > > current
> > > > >> >> scope.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> What about naming, I'm also renaming log occurrences of "grid"
> > and
> > > > >> "grid
> > > > >> >> name" where it stands reasonable.
> > > > >> >> Are there places in the logging logic where we should prefer
> name
> > > > >> "grid" or
> > > > >> >> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or "Ignite
> instance
> > > > >> name" can
> > > > >> >> be used without any semantic impact?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > > >> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>> Okay. From the all said above I suppose "instanceName" should
> > work
> > > > for
> > > > >> >>> IgniteConfiguration and "igniteInstanceName" in all other
> > places.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> Regards,
> > > > >> >>> Alexander
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> 31 дек. 2016 г. 3:43 AM пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <
> > > > >> >>> dsetrakyan@apache.org> написал:
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> 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, or should we leave it
> > as
> > > > >> null if
> > > > >> >>> user does not define it?
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> D.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <
> > dmagda@gridgain.com
> > > >
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName' suits better
> > > > considering
> > > > >> >>> your
> > > > >> >>>> explanation.
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> --
> > > > >> >>>> Denis
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >> >>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>> 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 get existing *Ignite* instance.
> > > > >> >>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node representation
> we
> > > have
> > > > >> >>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId() method for
> > > > >> >> identification.
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will have both
> > > nodeName
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely different meaning
> > and
> > > > >> used
> > > > >> >>> in
> > > > >> >>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to understand the
> > > > >> >> difference
> > > > >> >>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more confusing than
> > > current
> > > > >> >>>> gridName.
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> -Val
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > dmagda@gridgain.com
> > > > >
> > > > >> >>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> 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.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>> 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" <
> > > > >> >>>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > >> >>>>>>> написал:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>> 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
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of this
> > configuration
> > > > >> >>>> parameter?
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > >> >>>> 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 <
> > > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > > >> >> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it obvious that
> > the
> > > > >> >> name
> > > > >> >>> is
> > > > >> >>>>>> for
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> local node?
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> --
> > > > >> >> Kind regards,
> > > > >> >> Alexander.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > Alexander.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Alexander.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> > Alexander.
> >
>
--
Kind regards,
Alexander.