You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues@ignite.apache.org by "Alexandr Shapkin (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2021/12/02 13:17:00 UTC

[jira] [Comment Edited] (IGNITE-16038) Java Thin Client: Retrieve binary configuration from server

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-16038?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17452403#comment-17452403 ] 

Alexandr Shapkin edited comment on IGNITE-16038 at 12/2/21, 1:16 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[~alex_pl] 

 

Yes, that's correct, it is a potential compatibility break. I also find the case when a client can't read a value inserted by a thick client or vice versa counterintuitive. We just don't have any warnings or reasons that explain the problem with having different compact footers.

 

Consider this: 
 * a user starts a vanilla server node and performs cache#put(myKey, myVal) [compactFooter=true]
 * then it starts a default thin client and is trying to get a value with thinCache.get(myKey) [compactFooter=false]
 * ??? why there is no value found, seems like Ignite is broken...

 

In a very safe implementation, we might yield a WARN in a client's  (java version don't have it yet if I remember correctly) or server's logs with respect to the binary configuration mismatch and provide a user with the right direction on how to fix that. But I'd say we need to implement the change just like it's written in IEP and set compactFooter=serverValue. Well, we might add just another Ignite property to disable this feature and some announcements in release docs are welcome.

 

Anyway, my biggest concern is that - it's very confusing for the end-users. WDYT?

 


was (Author: ashapkin):
[~alex_pl] 

 

Yes, that's correct, it is a potential compatibility break. I also find the case when a client can't read a value inserted by a thick client or vice versa counterintuitive. We just don't have any warnings or reasons that explain the problem with having different compact footers.

 

Consider this: 
 * a user starts a vanilla server node and performs cache#put(myKey, myVal)
 * then it starts a default thin client and is trying to get a value with thinCache.get(myKey)
 * ??? why there is no value found, seems like Ignite is broken...

 

In a very safe implementation, we might yield a WARN in a client's  (java version don't have it yet if I remember correctly) or server's logs with respect to the binary configuration mismatch and provide a user with the right direction on how to fix that. But I'd say we need to implement the change just like it's written in IEP and set compactFooter=serverValue. Well, we might add just another Ignite property to disable this feature and some announcements in release docs are welcome.

 

Anyway, my biggest concern is that - it's very confusing for the end-users. WDYT?

 

> Java Thin Client: Retrieve binary configuration from server
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: IGNITE-16038
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-16038
>             Project: Ignite
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: platforms
>    Affects Versions: 2.11
>            Reporter: Alexandr Shapkin
>            Priority: Major
>
> Thin clients require manual binary configuration currently. Settings like compact footer and simple/full name mapper should be set to match the cluster settings. Extend the protocol to retrieve those settings automatically on start.
>  
> I.e. it's impossible to read a value inserted by a thick client with java thin client without specifying compactFooter=true



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)