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 2015/08/18 12:42:39 UTC
Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Guys,
I am thinking of deprecating this property.
1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there would
be separate topologies
2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
interface.
3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if different
names are configured within the same topology -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
Thoughts?
--Yakov
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by Vladimir Ozerov <vo...@gridgain.com>.
+1
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Sergi Vladykin <se...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Agree, the whole concept of grid name looks weird if nodes with different
> names still work as a single topology.
> Though we will need to refactor our tests if we are going to remove it..
>
> Sergi
>
> 2015-08-18 13:42 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> >
> > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there would
> > be separate topologies
> > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> > interface.
> > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> different
> > names are configured within the same topology -
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
>
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by Sergi Vladykin <se...@gmail.com>.
Agree, the whole concept of grid name looks weird if nodes with different
names still work as a single topology.
Though we will need to refactor our tests if we are going to remove it..
Sergi
2015-08-18 13:42 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> Guys,
>
> I am thinking of deprecating this property.
>
> 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there would
> be separate topologies
> 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> interface.
> 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if different
> names are configured within the same topology -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --Yakov
>
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by bintisepaha <bi...@tudor.com>.
Thank you Val, this is very helpful.
--
View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Deprecate-IgniteConfiguration-getGridName-tp2420p7685.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>.
Binti,
This is not an issue. What is discussed here is just proper naming of this
configuration property, but the concept stays the same - this is the name
of local Ignite instance and there is no requirement for all nodes in
topology to share the same name.
Whether nodes discover each other or not is defined by discovery
configuration:
https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/cluster-config#isolated-ignite-clusters-on-the-same-set-of-machin
-Val
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:19 AM, bintisepaha <bi...@tudor.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> We are facing this issue, nodes with different grid names are being
> identified in a single topology.
> Did the fix for this make it into version 1.6? If yes, how can I get this
> version?
>
> Thanks,
> Binti
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Deprecate-IgniteConfiguration-getGridName-tp2420p7613.html
> Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by bintisepaha <bi...@tudor.com>.
Hi,
We are facing this issue, nodes with different grid names are being
identified in a single topology.
Did the fix for this make it into version 1.6? If yes, how can I get this
version?
Thanks,
Binti
--
View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Deprecate-IgniteConfiguration-getGridName-tp2420p7613.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 'instanceName'. 'nodeName' looks confusing as well - I would think
that it should be unique among all nodes.
-Val
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Raul Kripalani <ra...@evosent.com> wrote:
> Agree. The term grid to refer to a single node is very confusing.
> On 19 Aug 2015 08:58, "Semyon Boikov" <sb...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> > Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> > 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
> > distinguish nodes in our tests?
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> > >
> > > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> > > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there
> would
> > > be separate topologies
> > > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> > > interface.
> > > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> > different
> > > names are configured within the same topology -
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> >
>
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by Raul Kripalani <ra...@evosent.com>.
Agree. The term grid to refer to a single node is very confusing.
On 19 Aug 2015 08:58, "Semyon Boikov" <sb...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
> distinguish nodes in our tests?
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> >
> > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there would
> > be separate topologies
> > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> > interface.
> > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> different
> > names are configured within the same topology -
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
>
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by Alexey Kuznetsov <ak...@gridgain.com>.
Now I also agree with Semyon about nodeName thread names are very important
debug feature.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Denis Magda <dm...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> Fully share Semyon's opinion: renaming to 'nodeName'.
>
>
>
> On 8/19/2015 11:22 AM, Semyon Boikov wrote:
>
>> There is already convinient way to distinguish nodes, why we are trying to
>> invent something new?
>>
>> Also note that now node name is added to the names of all ignite threads,
>> so when I run test from logs I can quickly understand where operation is
>> executed, I do not want to drop this feature.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov <
>> akuznetsov@gridgain.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some marker
>>> to node attributes) ?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
>>>> Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
>>>> 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
>>>> distinguish nodes in our tests?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am thinking of deprecating this property.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
>>>>> single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there
>>>>>
>>>> would
>>>
>>>> be separate topologies
>>>>> 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
>>>>> interface.
>>>>> 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
>>>>> deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
>>>>>
>>>> different
>>>>
>>>>> names are configured within the same topology -
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> --Yakov
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alexey Kuznetsov
>>> GridGain Systems
>>> www.gridgain.com
>>>
>>>
>
--
Alexey Kuznetsov
GridGain Systems
www.gridgain.com
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@gridgain.com>.
Fully share Semyon's opinion: renaming to 'nodeName'.
On 8/19/2015 11:22 AM, Semyon Boikov wrote:
> There is already convinient way to distinguish nodes, why we are trying to
> invent something new?
>
> Also note that now node name is added to the names of all ignite threads,
> so when I run test from logs I can quickly understand where operation is
> executed, I do not want to drop this feature.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov <ak...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some marker
>> to node attributes) ?
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
>>> Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
>>> 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
>>> distinguish nodes in our tests?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Guys,
>>>>
>>>> I am thinking of deprecating this property.
>>>>
>>>> 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
>>>> single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there
>> would
>>>> be separate topologies
>>>> 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
>>>> interface.
>>>> 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
>>>> deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
>>> different
>>>> names are configured within the same topology -
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> --Yakov
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexey Kuznetsov
>> GridGain Systems
>> www.gridgain.com
>>
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>.
There is already convinient way to distinguish nodes, why we are trying to
invent something new?
Also note that now node name is added to the names of all ignite threads,
so when I run test from logs I can quickly understand where operation is
executed, I do not want to drop this feature.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov <ak...@gridgain.com>
wrote:
> Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some marker
> to node attributes) ?
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> > Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> > 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
> > distinguish nodes in our tests?
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> > >
> > > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> > > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there
> would
> > > be separate topologies
> > > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> > > interface.
> > > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> > different
> > > names are configured within the same topology -
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alexey Kuznetsov
> GridGain Systems
> www.gridgain.com
>
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by Sergi Vladykin <se...@gmail.com>.
I think `instanceName` is good enough (if it will have a proper javadoc).
Sergi
2015-08-26 9:24 GMT+03:00 Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>:
> We can add 'nodeName' on ClusterNode API, it is very easy to implement
> since node name is already stored in node attributes.
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Although I share the sentiment that gridName is confusing, I think
> renaming
> > gridName to nodeName will be equally confusing. The "nodeName" property
> > sounds like something that should be on ClusterNode API, which is not the
> > case.
> >
> > If we rename if in one of the future versions, I think instanceName would
> > be a better option, no?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I tend to agree with Semyon. This is not a grid name, but the name of
> the
> > > local Ignite instance as an entry point to the grid. And this name is
> > used
> > > to conveniently get local Ignite instance: Ignite ignite =
> > > Ignition.ignite(name);
> > >
> > > It's usage in internal marshalling should stop.
> > >
> > > Any other opinions?
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> > > 2015-08-19 11:04 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <ak...@gridgain.com>:
> > >
> > > > Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some
> > > marker
> > > > to node attributes) ?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <sboikov@gridgain.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> > > > > Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> > > > > 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we
> will
> > > > > distinguish nodes in our tests?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> yzhdanov@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and
> > build
> > > a
> > > > > > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that
> there
> > > > would
> > > > > > be separate topologies
> > > > > > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through
> > > Ignition
> > > > > > interface.
> > > > > > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > > > > > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> > > > > different
> > > > > > names are configured within the same topology -
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Yakov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > GridGain Systems
> > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>.
We can add 'nodeName' on ClusterNode API, it is very easy to implement
since node name is already stored in node attributes.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Although I share the sentiment that gridName is confusing, I think renaming
> gridName to nodeName will be equally confusing. The "nodeName" property
> sounds like something that should be on ClusterNode API, which is not the
> case.
>
> If we rename if in one of the future versions, I think instanceName would
> be a better option, no?
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I tend to agree with Semyon. This is not a grid name, but the name of the
> > local Ignite instance as an entry point to the grid. And this name is
> used
> > to conveniently get local Ignite instance: Ignite ignite =
> > Ignition.ignite(name);
> >
> > It's usage in internal marshalling should stop.
> >
> > Any other opinions?
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
> > 2015-08-19 11:04 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <ak...@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some
> > marker
> > > to node attributes) ?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> > > > Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> > > > 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
> > > > distinguish nodes in our tests?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and
> build
> > a
> > > > > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there
> > > would
> > > > > be separate topologies
> > > > > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through
> > Ignition
> > > > > interface.
> > > > > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > > > > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> > > > different
> > > > > names are configured within the same topology -
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > --Yakov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > GridGain Systems
> > > www.gridgain.com
> > >
> >
>
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
Although I share the sentiment that gridName is confusing, I think renaming
gridName to nodeName will be equally confusing. The "nodeName" property
sounds like something that should be on ClusterNode API, which is not the
case.
If we rename if in one of the future versions, I think instanceName would
be a better option, no?
D.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> I tend to agree with Semyon. This is not a grid name, but the name of the
> local Ignite instance as an entry point to the grid. And this name is used
> to conveniently get local Ignite instance: Ignite ignite =
> Ignition.ignite(name);
>
> It's usage in internal marshalling should stop.
>
> Any other opinions?
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2015-08-19 11:04 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <ak...@gridgain.com>:
>
> > Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some
> marker
> > to node attributes) ?
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> > > Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> > > 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
> > > distinguish nodes in our tests?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> > > >
> > > > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build
> a
> > > > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there
> > would
> > > > be separate topologies
> > > > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through
> Ignition
> > > > interface.
> > > > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > > > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> > > different
> > > > names are configured within the same topology -
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > --Yakov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > GridGain Systems
> > www.gridgain.com
> >
>
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
I tend to agree with Semyon. This is not a grid name, but the name of the
local Ignite instance as an entry point to the grid. And this name is used
to conveniently get local Ignite instance: Ignite ignite =
Ignition.ignite(name);
It's usage in internal marshalling should stop.
Any other opinions?
--Yakov
2015-08-19 11:04 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <ak...@gridgain.com>:
> Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some marker
> to node attributes) ?
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> > Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> > 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
> > distinguish nodes in our tests?
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> > >
> > > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> > > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there
> would
> > > be separate topologies
> > > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> > > interface.
> > > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> > different
> > > names are configured within the same topology -
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alexey Kuznetsov
> GridGain Systems
> www.gridgain.com
>
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by Alexey Kuznetsov <ak...@gridgain.com>.
Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some marker
to node attributes) ?
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
> distinguish nodes in our tests?
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> >
> > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there would
> > be separate topologies
> > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> > interface.
> > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> different
> > names are configured within the same topology -
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
>
--
Alexey Kuznetsov
GridGain Systems
www.gridgain.com
Re: Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName
Posted by Semyon Boikov <sb...@gridgain.com>.
In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
distinguish nodes in our tests?
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I am thinking of deprecating this property.
>
> 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there would
> be separate topologies
> 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> interface.
> 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if different
> names are configured within the same topology -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --Yakov
>