You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ignite.apache.org by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> on 2020/08/14 16:44:14 UTC
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Michael, welcome to the community!
Igniters, let me introduce you to Michael, who is working on the Micronaut
integration for Ignite
<https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite>. Even though the
integration is hosted in the Micronaut repository, I thought it's in our
interest to help Michael with the APIs design and support with other
Ignite-specific challenges he might hit on the road. @Saikat Maitra, @Ilya
Kasnacheev, @Valentin Kulichenko, I would appreciate if you folks get
involved, at least, in the API design phase.
Michael, answering your questions
So I already have 2 implemented but I'm not really sure what you mean by
> autostart for number 1? so at the moment I have the thin-client omitted
> just for simplicity and I think it could just be added in afterwards. I'm
> not sure how important it is in the whole scheme of things since this is my
> first time really looking at ignite. we can start there and figure out
> those details.
Instead of the autostart, I was intended to say the autoconfigure feature,
which is a Spring Boot term
<https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#autoconfiguration-of-apache-ignite-servers-and-clients>.
Sorry for the confusion. Anyway, that's when Micronaut automatically starts
an Ignite client instance based on configuration settings. As you confirmed
below, the integration logic already does this.
When we design new public APIs, we frequently take advantage of Ignite Wiki
by creating design documents that comprise an API interface with code
samples showing how a developer is supposed to use the API.
You tweak the APIs with code samples until those are settled. This approach
helps to assess the APIs from the end-user standpoint and avoid common
design mistakes before coding and releasing a feature for public usage.
Furthermore, such design pages are an excellent source for a technical
documentation that you create regardless. Check the "Key Interfaces" and
"Examples" sections of the tracing feature's design page
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-48%3A+Tracing>.
So, my suggestion to you would be as follows:
- Create the Micronaut Integration page under the Design Documents tree
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Design+Documents>.
Sign up on the wiki and tell me your email/id. I'll grant you all the
required editing permissions.
- On that page, create a section for the autoconfigure feature by
listing all possible configuration parameters the user can pass in YAML
files and examples of how a client instance can be injected in application
logic. Guess, thin and thick clients will be configured differently.
- Another section should be related to the Micronaut Caching API. Again,
public Ignite-specific APIs we're adding to Micronaut and how the user is
supposed to use those.
Once the page is ready, we'll start brainstorming on the APIs together
using this discussion thread.
3 is giving me some problems since the SQL generated does not match up.
> ignite rejected the query when I have auto generated fields in the DDL
> statement and I've also dropped the scheme from the SQL and used the scheme
> to resolve the target cache. I'm using SqlFieldsQuery to make the request
> but there seems to be a few query options:
If you'd like to carry on with this part of the integration, then I would
start a separate discussion on the dev list. Or just put it off for a bit
until we sort out the clients' configuration and Micronaut Caching APIs.
-
Denis
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 1:16 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> Denis Magda
>
> So I already have 2 implemented but I'm not really sure what you mean by
> autostart for number 1? so at the moment I have the thin-client omitted
> just for simplicity and I think it could just be added in afterwards. I'm
> not sure how important it is in the whole scheme of things since this is my
> first time really looking at ignite. we can start there and figure out
> those details.
>
> here is the application.yml that i currently have for a basic
> configuration. I'm using the bean definitions from spring to do this:
>
> ignite:
> enabled: true
> clients:
> default:
> path: classpath:standard.cfg
>
>
> 3 is giving me some problems since the SQL generated does not match up.
> ignite rejected the query when I have auto generated fields in the DDL
> statement and I've also dropped the scheme from the SQL and used the scheme
> to resolve the target cache. I'm using SqlFieldsQuery to make the request
> but there seems to be a few query options:
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
> @IgniteRepository(value = "default", schema = "mydb")
>> public interface UserRepository extends CrudRepository<User, Long> {
>> }
>
>
> so I created an account on the apache ignite forum:
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=user_profile
>
> I wouldn't mind starting a thread to start planning out the API.
>
> From,
> Michael Pollind
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
Hi Saikat,
What fields in TcpCommunicationSPI are you referring to?
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Michael, Denis
>
> I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network options for
> Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something similar to
> configure CommunicationSpi
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> [2]
>
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Regards,
> Saikat
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation. You can ask
> > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for EachProperty
> > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the current existing
> > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are setup. There
> > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been pretty
> > helpful in the past in working out how some of these annotations work in
> > practice.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael,
> > >
> > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite instances
> > is
> > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a single
> instance
> > > only.
> > >
> > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration matters of
> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could you
> > recommend
> > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration specifies
> > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the communicationSpi,
> so
> > > you
> > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much like the
> > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just allowing a
> > > single
> > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot configuration:
> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the default use
> > case
> > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as follows:
> > > >
> > > > ignite:
> > > > enable true
> > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > > > communication-spi:
> > > > local-port: 5555
> > > > data-storage-configuration:
> > > > ...
> > > > cache-configurations:
> > > > - name: accounts
> > > > queryEntities:
> > > > - tableName: NAME
> > > > ...
> > > > - ...
> > > > ignite-thin:
> > > > enable: false
> > > > instance-name: name
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of something
> that
> > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Michael,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by
> > > default
> > > > so
> > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the
> > > default
> > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is
> > > > present.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we shouldn't
> bother
> > > > about
> > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I said
> before,
> > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is designed
> for
> > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly think of a
> > use
> > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot up several
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite instance
> > per
> > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will
> significantly
> > > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If anybody
> > needs
> > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them manually.
> > > > >
> > > > > By default the
> > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache
> if
> > > that
> > > > > > would be ok?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply disallow
> > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a thick or
> > thin
> > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already started, then
> > throw
> > > an
> > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and vice
> versa).
> > > As
> > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut, I would
> > > > recommend
> > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a serverless
> > function
> > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while for
> > > > micro-services
> > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was
> mainly
> > > for
> > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about Micronaut.
> Let
> > me
> > > > > double-check the following with you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > > > >
> > > > > private final String name;
> > > > >
> > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below without
> > having
> > > > it
> > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you getting a
> > > > > NullPointerException?
> > > > >
> > > > > ignite:
> > > > > name: some_name
> > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > > > communicationSpi:
> > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> > > > > -
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together along
> with
> > > some
> > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little
> complicated
> > > > but I
> > > > > > think it's doable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was
> > > mainly
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant.
> > Will
> > > > > have
> > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might get a
> little
> > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> > > > > >>
> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass that to
> > > > somewhere
> > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> private final String name;
> > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
> > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is declared. I
> > > think
> > > > > we
> > > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If i'm not
> > > > mistaken
> > > > > for
> > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the name
> > since
> > > > > that is
> > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under EachProperty.
> > The
> > > > > name is
> > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the same
> > > > > qualifier for
> > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the
> primary
> > > bean
> > > > > for
> > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance active
> > at a
> > > > > time.
> > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by
> > > > default
> > > > > so
> > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the
> > > > default
> > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration
> is
> > > > > present.
> > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use one
> > instance
> > > of
> > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again. By
> > default
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache
> > if
> > > > that
> > > > > >>> would be ok?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> ignite:
> > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > >>> ....
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
> instances.
> > > > This
> > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick or
> thin
> > > > > client
> > > > > >>>> per
> > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can utilize
> all
> > > the
> > > > > CPUs
> > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the ability to
> > > > > configure
> > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I understand,
> > Micronaut
> > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > > > property,
> > > > > >>>> right?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By
> looking
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > > > >>>> >,
> > > > > >>>> that defines
> org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> property
> > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that Micronaut
> could
> > > > > >>>> introspect
> > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared these
> > > > > properties
> > > > > >>>> table
> > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> >.
> > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin
> client
> > > in a
> > > > > >>>> YAML
> > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
> > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some settings such
> > as
> > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this sound
> > > accurate
> > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just swap the
> > > > "path"
> > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is IgniteConfiguration.
> > Then
> > > > let
> > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and
> allow a
> > > > > >>>> developer
> > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder or
> > memory
> > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find IgniteConfiguration
> > defaults
> > > > > here
> > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> .
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> -
> > > > > >>>> Denis
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
> instances.
> > > > This
> > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was
> > originally
> > > > > >>>> trying to
> > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite instance
> but
> > > > found
> > > > > I
> > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what defaults
> > are
> > > > set
> > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't be
> > > covered
> > > > > >>>> with how
> > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations. @ConfigurationProperty can
> > > only
> > > > be
> > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have multiple
> > > > > factories
> > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming. In
> > this
> > > > > >>>> situation
> > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal in this
> > > > > >>>> situation when
> > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be able to
> > > cover
> > > > > >>>> enough
> > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default:
> > address:
> > > > > -
> > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
> > 127.0.0.1:10801
> > > "
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
> > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and the
> > > > current
> > > > > >>>> > version
> > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > >
> > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > class,
> > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
> > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> (or, to
> > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration as
> > it's
> > > > > done
> > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > >>>> > the
> > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > > > >>>> > > >).
> > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the developers
> > might
> > > > need
> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to the
> Ignite
> > > > > clients
> > > > > >>>> > only.
> > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > > > >>>> > >
> io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I
> would
> > > > > replace
> > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
> > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do that,
> > then
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>> > > developers
> > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
> > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> straight
> > > > > >>>> > in
> > > > > >>>> > > the
> > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite Spring
> > > Boot
> > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I
> would
> > > > > rework
> > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking our
> > > Spring
> > > > > >>>> Boot
> > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
> > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > >
> > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > already
> > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename
> "configuration"
> > > to
> > > > > >>>> "config",
> > > > > >>>> > > and
> > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass the
> > > > > >>>> transactional
> > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format below:
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > > > >>>> > > name:
> > > > > >>>> > > config:
> > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > -
> > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get wrapped
> > > into a
> > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the relevant
> > > > sections
> > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > >>>> > code
> > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the methods
> > > that
> > > > > get
> > > > > >>>> > called
> > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully this
> > > helps.
> > > > > >>>> The key
> > > > > >>>> > is
> > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can
> be
> > > > > changed
> > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > >>>> > > there
> > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default it uses
> > > this
> > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/
> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > >>>> > > .
> > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how this
> > > could
> > > > > be
> > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the
> > value
> > > > is
> > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > >>>> > > present
> > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null
> > else
> > > it
> > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code
> because I
> > > use
> > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and
> > write
> > > > some
> > > > > >>>> > > additional
> > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the
> key.
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using
> @CachePut,
> > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was
> > > > trying
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would be the
> > > > > underlying
> > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those operations
> are
> > > > > >>>> performed?
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below method then
> > how
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>> result
> > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > > > >>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
> > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this
> would
> > > > need
> > > > > >>>> to be
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into multiple
> > > modules.
> > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have
> > > > ignite-data
> > > > > >>>> but
> > > > > >>>> > that
> > > > > >>>> > > > will
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but the
> > > basic
> > > > > >>>> config is
> > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API described
> in
> > > the
> > > > > >>>> wiki and
> > > > > >>>> > > make
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm
> > > > missing
> > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that would
> > fit
> > > > > into
> > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm
> > sure
> > > > > >>>> something
> > > > > >>>> > > > could
> > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module
> that
> > > can
> > > > be
> > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this module
> also
> > > > has a
> > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are
> the
> > > two
> > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > > > >>>> > > > that
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to
> define
> > > the
> > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and
> > > SyncCache
> > > > > but
> > > > > >>>> they
> > > > > >>>> > > also
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name
> of
> > > the
> > > > > >>>> instance
> > > > > >>>> > > to
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the
> > > documentation
> > > > I
> > > > > >>>> believe
> > > > > >>>> > > for
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and
> > > Hazelcast
> > > > > >>>> > implements
> > > > > >>>> > > > the
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml
> > > > > >>>> configuration in
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache names
> > are
> > > > > >>>> provided
> > > > > >>>> > > along
> > > > > >>>> > > > > with
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be setup
> > > > where a
> > > > > >>>> list
> > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a
> > > > > >>>> configuration if
> > > > > >>>> > > that
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/
> > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > >>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any
> > > questions
> > > > > with
> > > > > >>>> > > respect
> > > > > >>>> > > > to
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration and
> wanted
> > to
> > > > ask
> > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > >>>> > these
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for the
> > > > > >>>> micronaut-ignite
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > integration.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable
> within
> > > the
> > > > > >>>> given
> > > > > >>>> > cache
> > > > > >>>> > > > > name
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a
> > > method
> > > > > >>>> > invocation
> > > > > >>>> > > > > should
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original
> operation
> > is
> > > > > never
> > > > > >>>> > > skipped.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a
> > > method
> > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > >>>> > > cause
> > > > > >>>> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev
> > list,
> > > > it
> > > > > >>>> great
> > > > > >>>> > to
> > > > > >>>> > > > > learn
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Saikat
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > >>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the
> details
> > > over
> > > > > >>>> the next
> > > > > >>>> > > few
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > days
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > >>>> dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in
> the
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > >>>> > > namespace.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending
> a
> > > note
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address.
> > > Otherwise,
> > > > > we
> > > > > >>>> need
> > > > > >>>> > to
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > approve
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael
> Pollind
> > <
> > > > > >>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?
> > > > username=mpollind
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request
> that
> > > I've
> > > > > put
> > > > > >>>> > > > together:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
> > > > > >>>> > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Great, Michael! I announced the integration via our twitter channel:
https://twitter.com/ApacheIgnite/status/1305568860964179968?s=20
and we'll work on a technical article a bit later once finish with the
release of the new Ignite docs.
-
Denis
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:10 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> here is the release:
> https://search.maven.org/artifact/io.micronaut.ignite/micronaut-ignite-core/1.0.0.RC1/jar
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:16 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> looks like I was wrong, will have to wait till this PR get merged and a
>> release is made in the repo.
>>
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/pull/4070
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:01 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The caching is setup in the branch and the release candidate is already
>>> out I think. can't think of anything off the top of my head with tweaking
>>> the ignite cache module but i'm sure a few adjustments can be made.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:41 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael, congrats, it was a pleasure working with you!
>>>>
>>>> Let us know once the release candidate is published. I'll go ahead and
>>>> update my tutorial, and would probably create a separate blog post for
>>>> DZone or Dev.to:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.gridgain.com/docs/tutorials/micronaut/getting-started/ignite-micronaut-getting-started
>>>>
>>>> Are you planning to work on the Micronaut Caching module? Or is it
>>>> already enabled and we just need to prepare examples on how to use Ignite
>>>> as a Micronaut cache?
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> Denis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:17 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> With some help from @Denis Magda <dm...@gridgain.com>, we were able
>>>>> to rework micronaut-ignite and a release candidate was approved. I'm
>>>>> pretty happy with this first pass and there is a lot more that can be added
>>>>> but this is a good initial first step.
>>>>>
>>>>> documentation can be bound here:
>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>>>>> PR: https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 5:32 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure, I would probably bring that up in the PR so the micronaut
>>>>>> devs are aware of this. Not sure how the CI will work and what can be
>>>>>> arranged in this case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The docs look good enough for the release. Once the integration is
>>>>>>> released, I'll update and extend my Micronaut tutorial elucidating
>>>>>>> on how
>>>>>>> to use the integration in practice for various use cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Btw, are the ignite-core and ignite-cache Maven artifacts will be
>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>> for a specific version of Ignite? Ideally, the version of Ignite
>>>>>>> needs to
>>>>>>> be set in a pom.xml and the Micronaut integration should pick them
>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, what are we doing next - reviewing APIs of the ignite-cache
>>>>>>> module or
>>>>>>> going through a review process of the ignite-core and merging it
>>>>>>> first to
>>>>>>> the Micronaut repository?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Also you need to sign the CLA since you add a commit to my branch.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > branch:
>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework
>>>>>>> > linked PR:
>>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>> > Michael Pollind
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > > Could you share the full path to the branch? Don't want to pick
>>>>>>> a wrong
>>>>>>> > one
>>>>>>> > > accidentally.
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > -
>>>>>>> > > Denis
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:47 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > so that clears up the extra flag for micronaut-cache. just
>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>> > > > intercept the default IgniteConfiguration bean and update the
>>>>>>> > > > configuration. if you pull my latest changes from the rework
>>>>>>> branch you
>>>>>>> > > can
>>>>>>> > > > look at the docs for that micronaut module. `./gradlew docs`.
>>>>>>> > Finalizing
>>>>>>> > > > the docs should be the last part of this. The configuration
>>>>>>> from my
>>>>>>> > > > perspective seems pretty much there. Is there anything else
>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>> > > > missing?
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:31 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > 👍 Nice catch!
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > -
>>>>>>> > > > > Denis
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > One thing that just occurred to me for the
>>>>>>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>>> > > > > you
>>>>>>> > > > > > can actually just intercept the bean when it's created.
>>>>>>> This should
>>>>>>> > > let
>>>>>>> > > > > us
>>>>>>> > > > > > use the enable flag from ignite-core for ignite-cache
>>>>>>> without the
>>>>>>> > > > > > additional flag.
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > @Singleton
>>>>>>> > > > > > public class IgniteConfigurationFactoryInterceptor
>>>>>>> implements
>>>>>>> > > > > > BeanCreatedEventListener<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> {
>>>>>>> > > > > > @Override
>>>>>>> > > > > > public IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > onCreated(BeanCreatedEvent<DefaultIgniteConfiguration>
>>>>>>> event) {
>>>>>>> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration configuration =
>>>>>>> event.getBean();
>>>>>>> > > > > > configuration.setIgniteInstanceName("instance-a");
>>>>>>> > > > > > return configuration;
>>>>>>> > > > > > }
>>>>>>> > > > > > }
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Denis Magda <
>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > Michael,
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > Looks terrific! I went ahead and grouped the
>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>> > samples
>>>>>>> > > > by a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > client type:
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > As you see, the "Ignite Thin Client" section is blank
>>>>>>> for now.
>>>>>>> > > Would
>>>>>>> > > > > you
>>>>>>> > > > > > > mind filling it with configuration options following the
>>>>>>> format
>>>>>>> > > taken
>>>>>>> > > > > for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > the thick client?
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > Ping me here once you're ready to review the API and
>>>>>>> > implementation
>>>>>>> > > > of
>>>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > ignite-caching module.
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > -
>>>>>>> > > > > > > Denis
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:16 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Here is a sample project I threw together and I've
>>>>>>> also updated
>>>>>>> > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > wiki
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > just a bit. working on updating the documentation on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> > > micronaut
>>>>>>> > > > > end.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>> > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config.
>>>>>>> splitting it
>>>>>>> > into
>>>>>>> > > > two
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > modules
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't
>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>> > like
>>>>>>> > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > random
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your
>>>>>>> > provider:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > kind of strange that there are not getters for the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough
>>>>>>> to verify
>>>>>>> > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've
>>>>>>> written.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > static ip finder
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.enabled"
>>>>>>> : true,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
>>>>>>> > > > > > "localhost:1800",
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled"
>>>>>>> : "true",
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "
>>>>>>> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:47500
>>>>>>> > > > > > > ",
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "
>>>>>>> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:47501
>>>>>>> > > > > > > ",
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > kubernetties ip finder
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.enabled"
>>>>>>> : true,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port"
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> > > > > > > "localhost:1800",
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled"
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> > "true",
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace":
>>>>>>> > > > "HelloWorld"
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>>>> > dmagda@apache.org
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Michael,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the
>>>>>>> ignite-cache
>>>>>>> > > > module
>>>>>>> > > > > in
>>>>>>> > > > > > > two
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> (one for a thick-client based connection and the
>>>>>>> other for
>>>>>>> > > thin
>>>>>>> > > > > > client
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> connections), and would try to avoid this route if
>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut
>>>>>>> developers can
>>>>>>> > > > create
>>>>>>> > > > > a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> generic
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite
>>>>>>> connectivity
>>>>>>> > > > > methods,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > which
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache
>>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>> > can
>>>>>>> > > > > > decide
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > what
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client
>>>>>>> one,
>>>>>>> > depends
>>>>>>> > > > on
>>>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > type
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of a client you started with our auto-configuration
>>>>>>> > feature).
>>>>>>> > > > > Let’s
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> discuss
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> all the existing issues here and jump on another
>>>>>>> call to
>>>>>>> > > > finalize
>>>>>>> > > > > a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> solution if needed.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Denis
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <
>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Michael,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went
>>>>>>> ahead and
>>>>>>> > > > > pushed
>>>>>>> > > > > > > some
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see,
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>> > changes
>>>>>>> > > > do
>>>>>>> > > > > > some
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> minor
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > tweaks in the
>>>>>>> DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration class
>>>>>>> > and
>>>>>>> > > > add
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Static
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the
>>>>>>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > class.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > The
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I
>>>>>>> think we'll
>>>>>>> > > > figure
>>>>>>> > > > > > how
>>>>>>> > > > > > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > modify the test on the call today.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure
>>>>>>> IgniteCaches
>>>>>>> > via
>>>>>>> > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Micronaut
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration. If an application needs to create
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> > caches,
>>>>>>> > > > it
>>>>>>> > > > > > can
>>>>>>> > > > > > > do
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> this
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > -
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Denis
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> > these
>>>>>>> > > > can
>>>>>>> > > > > > be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > provided through a factory.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @Bean
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @Named("default")
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @Primary
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > public IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> > configuration,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration>
>>>>>>> cacheConfigurations,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration>
>>>>>>> > > executorConfigurations,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Optional<PlatformConfiguration>
>>>>>>> platformConfigurations,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > Optional<CollisionSpi>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> collisionSpi,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > Collection<FailoverSpi>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> failoverSpis,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > @ConsistencyId
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > @IgniteLifecycle
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> CacheConfiguration[0]))
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new
>>>>>>> > > > > > > PluginProvider[0]))
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new
>>>>>>> > > > > FailoverSpi[0]))
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > LifecycleBean[0]))
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > return configuration;
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks
>>>>>>> like now.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > ignite:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > enabled: true
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > comunication-spi:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > local-port: 5555
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > cache-configurations:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > - accounts:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > key-type: String
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > - books:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > table-name: BOOKS
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > key-type: String
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object
>>>>>>> if its
>>>>>>> > > static
>>>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > nested
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will
>>>>>>> not work
>>>>>>> > > in
>>>>>>> > > > > this
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> case. So
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the
>>>>>>> > > environment.
>>>>>>> > > > > > This
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > is a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > working example but this can be adjusted. I
>>>>>>> guess it
>>>>>>> > would
>>>>>>> > > > have
>>>>>>> > > > > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a
>>>>>>> minimum working
>>>>>>> > > > setup
>>>>>>> > > > > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> then
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
>>>>>>> "dataStorageConfiguration",
>>>>>>> > > > > > excludes =
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> "dataRegionConfigurations")
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > final DataStorageConfiguration
>>>>>>> dataStorageConfiguration =
>>>>>>> > > new
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> DataStorageConfiguration();
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > public static class
>>>>>>> DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration
>>>>>>> dataRegionConfiguration = new
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> DataRegionConfiguration();
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > public DataRegionConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > getDataRegionConfiguration()
>>>>>>> > > > > {
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Dennis,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have
>>>>>>> missed it
>>>>>>> > > because
>>>>>>> > > > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> didn't
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is
>>>>>>> fine, but
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > is a final class so that can't be extended from.
>>>>>>> This PR
>>>>>>> > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > starting
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to
>>>>>>> update the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > documentation.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > other thing I did was add a flag for the
>>>>>>> associated cache
>>>>>>> > to
>>>>>>> > > > use
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit
>>>>>>> and see
>>>>>>> > If I
>>>>>>> > > > can
>>>>>>> > > > > > > work
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> out
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but
>>>>>>> you can
>>>>>>> > > > > provide
>>>>>>> > > > > > > your
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> own
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > [image: image.png]
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>>>> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Michael,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks, for verifying.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but
>>>>>>> couldn't get
>>>>>>> > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with
>>>>>>> ConfigurationBuilder.
>>>>>>> > Instead
>>>>>>> > > > > they
>>>>>>> > > > > > > are
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> just
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the
>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>> > > > > configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> its
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of
>>>>>>> Hazelcast
>>>>>>> > > core:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig,
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> > > > > Micronaut's
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following
>>>>>>> > > > configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > parameteres:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong
>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>> > > parent
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ClientConfig
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes
>>>>>>> =
>>>>>>> > > > > {"properties",
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext",
>>>>>>> > "clusterName"}*
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig,
>>>>>>> > > SocketOptions
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> properties
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class)
>>>>>>> can not
>>>>>>> > be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > inherited
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > as
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > above. Thus, they define those with
>>>>>>> > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>>>>> > > > > > > manually.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > As a result, their implementation is simple and
>>>>>>> compact,
>>>>>>> > and
>>>>>>> > > > > here
>>>>>>> > > > > > > is a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > final list of configuration properties:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Could you check if we can follow a similar
>>>>>>> approach? Let's
>>>>>>> > > > start
>>>>>>> > > > > > > with
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > thin client. It's much simpler.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > yea, will need to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own
>>>>>>> bean because
>>>>>>> > > > there
>>>>>>> > > > > > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > no
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> way
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I
>>>>>>> haven't quite
>>>>>>> > > > worked
>>>>>>> > > > > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> out
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > yet.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design.
>>>>>>> Let me
>>>>>>> > > know
>>>>>>> > > > if
>>>>>>> > > > > > you
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> need
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > me to help to figure out how to do that with
>>>>>>> Micronaut.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > -
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Denis
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > Dennis,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > This is what I came up with with some of the
>>>>>>> > suggestions:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > test cases:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but
>>>>>>> couldn't
>>>>>>> > get
>>>>>>> > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with
>>>>>>> ConfigurationBuilder.
>>>>>>> > Instead
>>>>>>> > > > > they
>>>>>>> > > > > > > are
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> just
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ConfigurationProperty
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the
>>>>>>> table in the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> documentation is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> > > think
>>>>>>> > > > > this
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > will
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > work
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest
>>>>>>> > > > @EachProperty
>>>>>>> > > > > > in
>>>>>>> > > > > > > a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > single
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work
>>>>>>> with how
>>>>>>> > > > stuff
>>>>>>> > > > > > gets
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > resolved
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > (
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938
>>>>>>> > > > > > > ).
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> so
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is
>>>>>>> kind of a
>>>>>>> > > > first
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > working
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite
>>>>>>> a bit.
>>>>>>> > yea,
>>>>>>> > > > > will
>>>>>>> > > > > > > need
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own
>>>>>>> bean because
>>>>>>> > > > there
>>>>>>> > > > > > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > no
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> way
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I
>>>>>>> haven't quite
>>>>>>> > > > worked
>>>>>>> > > > > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> out
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > yet.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the
>>>>>>> > > confluence.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>>>> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Michael,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > specificities.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > What
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > confused
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > me before, is that even though the beans
>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>> > > in
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Micronaut
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > looks
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach,
>>>>>>> the former
>>>>>>> > > > > > automates
>>>>>>> > > > > > > a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> lot
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > with
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> > > default
>>>>>>> > > > > > Spring
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Boot
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration looks
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users
>>>>>>> define any
>>>>>>> > > > possible
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> property
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > of
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > an
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this
>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > The upside of the reflection.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's
>>>>>>> what I
>>>>>>> > would
>>>>>>> > > > > > suggest.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - Let's create
>>>>>>> DefaultThinClientConfiguration that
>>>>>>> > > > > > *extends*
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Ignite's
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > ClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > ClientConfiguration.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Once done, it will be possible to
>>>>>>> configure most of
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > ClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess
>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>> > how
>>>>>>> > > > you
>>>>>>> > > > > > > were
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> doing
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > before I joined the review)
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> class are
>>>>>>> > of
>>>>>>> > > > > > custom
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > non-primitive types and should be added
>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly
>>>>>>> via the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType,
>>>>>>> sslProtocol,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Apart from the
>>>>>>> DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we
>>>>>>> > > > > support
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> another
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration approach when a
>>>>>>> ClientConfiguration bean
>>>>>>> > > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > created
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > programmatically in the source code and the
>>>>>>> > integration
>>>>>>> > > > uses
>>>>>>> > > > > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> bean
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client
>>>>>>> (instead of
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that
>>>>>>> requires to
>>>>>>> > > set
>>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > properties
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the
>>>>>>> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> bean
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > programmatically
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an
>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>> > object.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the
>>>>>>> numerous
>>>>>>> > > > > > > configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > .
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to
>>>>>>> select the
>>>>>>> > most
>>>>>>> > > > > > > frequently
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> used
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation.
>>>>>>> However, it
>>>>>>> > seems
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > reasonable
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> if
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend
>>>>>>> Ignite's
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> (so
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of
>>>>>>> primitive
>>>>>>> > > types).
>>>>>>> > > > > > Based
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > on
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> my
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > experience, I would add the following
>>>>>>> settings of
>>>>>>> > custom
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> non-primitive
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > types:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this
>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>> > > done
>>>>>>> > > > > > > easily,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > right,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder
>>>>>>> field. In the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > beginning,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > would
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > only
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >via
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > including
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions
>>>>>>> property.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here
>>>>>>> is I'm
>>>>>>> > > > > assuming
>>>>>>> > > > > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> we
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > can
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > do
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > (include)
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > or inheritence.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings
>>>>>>> > unsupported
>>>>>>> > > by
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should
>>>>>>> be a way
>>>>>>> > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > create
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > an
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and
>>>>>>> use it
>>>>>>> > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > initialize
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> an
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Ignite instance (instead of
>>>>>>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm
>>>>>>> still missing
>>>>>>> > > > > > > something.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > -
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Denis
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for
>>>>>>> ehcache[1]
>>>>>>> > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > network
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> options
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can
>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>> > > > something
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> similar to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > [1]
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > [2]
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Let me know what you think.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Regards,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Saikat
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael
>>>>>>> Pollind <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through
>>>>>>> > > > > > experimentation.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > You
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> can
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > ask
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty
>>>>>>> comprehensive:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>>>> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html
>>>>>>> > .
>>>>>>> > > > look
>>>>>>> > > > > > for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also
>>>>>>> hunt
>>>>>>> > through
>>>>>>> > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > current
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > existing
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those
>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>> > > > items
>>>>>>> > > > > > are
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> setup.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > There
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in
>>>>>>> micronaut-core
>>>>>>> > which
>>>>>>> > > > have
>>>>>>> > > > > > > been
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > pretty
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how
>>>>>>> some of
>>>>>>> > these
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > annotations
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > work
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > in
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > practice.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis
>>>>>>> Magda <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Michael,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the
>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>> > > quantity
>>>>>>> > > > of
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > instances
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to
>>>>>>> > > > > auto-configure a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> single
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instance
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > only.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> > > > > configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> matters
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > of
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what
>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>> > > > suggest.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > Could
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> you
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > recommend
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on
>>>>>>> Micronaut
>>>>>>> > > > > > configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > specifies
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via
>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>> > > code)?
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Denis
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael
>>>>>>> Pollind <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able
>>>>>>> to infer
>>>>>>> > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > communicationSpi,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > so
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > you
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as
>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration
>>>>>>> should look
>>>>>>> > > > pretty
>>>>>>> > > > > > > much
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> like
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the
>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>> > easier
>>>>>>> > > > with
>>>>>>> > > > > > > just
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > allowing
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > single
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with
>>>>>>> > spring-boot
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> configuration:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then
>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>> > > that
>>>>>>> > > > as
>>>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > default
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > use
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > case
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the
>>>>>>> definition will
>>>>>>> > > work
>>>>>>> > > > > as
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> follows:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable true
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - ...
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable: false
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to
>>>>>>> enforce the
>>>>>>> > > > presence
>>>>>>> > > > > > of
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > something
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis
>>>>>>> Magda <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> dmagda@apache.org
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Michael,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup
>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>> > > primary
>>>>>>> > > > > > bean
>>>>>>> > > > > > > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> used
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > by
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > so
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use
>>>>>>> micronaut-cache
>>>>>>> > > with
>>>>>>> > > > > > > anything
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> but
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override
>>>>>>> the other
>>>>>>> > if
>>>>>>> > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > present.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm
>>>>>>> convinced
>>>>>>> > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > we
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > shouldn't
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > bother
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > about
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several
>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>> > > > > instances.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > As I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> said
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > before,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case.
>>>>>>> Furthermore,
>>>>>>> > > > > > Micronout
>>>>>>> > > > > > > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > designed
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless
>>>>>>> functions and
>>>>>>> > I
>>>>>>> > > > can
>>>>>>> > > > > > > hardly
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > think
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > of a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > use
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or
>>>>>>> function would
>>>>>>> > > need
>>>>>>> > > > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > boot
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> up
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > several
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ignite
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to
>>>>>>> auto-configure a
>>>>>>> > > > single
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > instance
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > per
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your
>>>>>>> view on
>>>>>>> > this?
>>>>>>> > > > It
>>>>>>> > > > > > will
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > significantly
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and
>>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>>> > > > > > integration.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > If
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > anybody
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > needs
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> > > > instantiate
>>>>>>> > > > > > them
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > manually.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > By default the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will
>>>>>>> replace the
>>>>>>> > > > > thin-client
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > DynamicCache
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > if
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above,
>>>>>>> then I
>>>>>>> > > would
>>>>>>> > > > > > simply
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > disallow
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite
>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>> > > (let
>>>>>>> > > > > it
>>>>>>> > > > > > > be a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > thick
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > thin
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick
>>>>>>> client is
>>>>>>> > > > already
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> started,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > then
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > throw
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > an
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to
>>>>>>> initialize a thin
>>>>>>> > > > > client
>>>>>>> > > > > > > (and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> vice
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > versa).
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > As
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in
>>>>>>> relation
>>>>>>> > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Micronaut,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > would
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > recommend
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> > deployed
>>>>>>> > > > in
>>>>>>> > > > > a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > serverless
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > function
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the
>>>>>>> cluster
>>>>>>> > > > faster),
>>>>>>> > > > > > > while
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > micro-services
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the
>>>>>>> spring
>>>>>>> > > bean
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > definition
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > was
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > mainly
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what
>>>>>>> fields
>>>>>>> > are
>>>>>>> > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > most
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > relevant.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some
>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>> > > point
>>>>>>> > > > > > about
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > Micronaut.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Let
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > me
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > igniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > =
>>>>>>> > > > > > new
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the
>>>>>>> > communicationSpi
>>>>>>> > > > bean
>>>>>>> > > > > > > below
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > without
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > having
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > it
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as a field of the
>>>>>>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration?
>>>>>>> > > > Are
>>>>>>> > > > > > you
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > getting a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ignite:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> > > SPI}
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Denis
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM
>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>> > > > Pollind <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I
>>>>>>> quickly
>>>>>>> > > threw
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > together
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > along
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > with
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like
>>>>>>> this might
>>>>>>> > > > get a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > little
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > complicated
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM
>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>> > > > > Pollind <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> > spring
>>>>>>> > > > bean
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> definition
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > was
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mainly
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure
>>>>>>> what fields
>>>>>>> > > are
>>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > most
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Will
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > have
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the
>>>>>>> > > > configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > might
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> get a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > little
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you
>>>>>>> can do
>>>>>>> > is
>>>>>>> > > > use
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and
>>>>>>> values and
>>>>>>> > > you
>>>>>>> > > > > can
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > pass
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > somewhere
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> > this
>>>>>>> > > as
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > follows:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > igniteConfiguration =
>>>>>>> > > > > > > new
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
>>>>>>> > > > > "communicationSpi")
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi
>>>>>>> > > communicationSpi
>>>>>>> > > > =
>>>>>>> > > > > > new
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM
>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>> > > > > Pollind
>>>>>>> > > > > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by
>>>>>>> default when
>>>>>>> > the
>>>>>>> > > > > object
>>>>>>> > > > > > > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > declared. I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > think
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > we
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple
>>>>>>> > > > > > ConfigurationBuilders
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > If
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> i'm
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > not
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > mistaken
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you
>>>>>>> don't need
>>>>>>> > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > provide
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > name
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > since
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each
>>>>>>> > configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > under
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers
>>>>>>> to that
>>>>>>> > > bean
>>>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > also
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > same
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the
>>>>>>> most part
>>>>>>> > > will
>>>>>>> > > > > just
>>>>>>> > > > > > > use
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > primary
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > bean
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only
>>>>>>> have one
>>>>>>> > > > cache
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> instance
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > active
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > time.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup
>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>> > > > primary
>>>>>>> > > > > > > bean
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > used
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > by
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > so
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use
>>>>>>> micronaut-cache
>>>>>>> > > > with
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > anything
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override
>>>>>>> the other
>>>>>>> > > if
>>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > present.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is
>>>>>>> micronaut-cache. We
>>>>>>> > > can
>>>>>>> > > > > > only
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > use
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> one
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > instance
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to
>>>>>>> verify how
>>>>>>> > that
>>>>>>> > > > > works
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> again.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > By
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > default
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will
>>>>>>> replace the
>>>>>>> > > > > > thin-client
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DynamicCache
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > if
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13
>>>>>>> PM Denis
>>>>>>> > > > Magda <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't
>>>>>>> need to work
>>>>>>> > > > with
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > multiple
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master
>>>>>>> branch.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a
>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>> > > > instance
>>>>>>> > > > > > of
>>>>>>> > > > > > > a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> thick
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > thin
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are
>>>>>>> > > multi-threaded
>>>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > can
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > utilize
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > all
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > CPUs
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not
>>>>>>> harmful
>>>>>>> > to
>>>>>>> > > > > have
>>>>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > ability
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > configure
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per
>>>>>>> application. As far
>>>>>>> > > as
>>>>>>> > > > I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> understand,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Micronaut
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > property,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for
>>>>>>> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration?
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut
>>>>>>> what those
>>>>>>> > > > > defaults
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > are?
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> By
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > looking
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of
>>>>>>> "configuration"), I
>>>>>>> > > see
>>>>>>> > > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Micronaut
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > could
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the
>>>>>>> > ClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> prepared
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > these
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properties
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever
>>>>>>> I am
>>>>>>> > > > > configuring
>>>>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> thin
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > client
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an
>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>> > > of
>>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> > > override
>>>>>>> > > > > > some
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > settings
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > such
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > as
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or
>>>>>>> > > "enablePartitionAwareness".
>>>>>>> > > > > Does
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > this
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > sound
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > accurate
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the
>>>>>>> > IgniteConfiguration,
>>>>>>> > > I
>>>>>>> > > > > > would
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > just
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > swap
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > "path"
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the
>>>>>>> "config" that is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > IgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Then
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > let
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the
>>>>>>> > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > defaults
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > allow a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults
>>>>>>> (such as
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> discoverySPI.ipFinder
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > memory
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you
>>>>>>> can find
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > defaults
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > here
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59
>>>>>>> PM Michael
>>>>>>> > > > > > Pollind <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't
>>>>>>> need to work
>>>>>>> > > > with
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > multiple
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master
>>>>>>> branch.
>>>>>>> > I
>>>>>>> > > > > > believe
>>>>>>> > > > > > > I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> was
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > originally
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration
>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>> > > default
>>>>>>> > > > > > > ignite
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > instance
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > but
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > found
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the
>>>>>>> > > > configuration.
>>>>>>> > > > > > So
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > what
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > defaults
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > are
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>> > > > factory
>>>>>>> > > > > > > items
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> can't
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > covered
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up
>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationProperty
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > can
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > only
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory,
>>>>>>> there are
>>>>>>> > > > ways
>>>>>>> > > > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > have
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > multiple
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > factories
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that
>>>>>>> easily
>>>>>>> > > gets
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> overwhelming.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > In
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would
>>>>>>> > probably
>>>>>>> > > be
>>>>>>> > > > > > more
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ideal
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > in
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was
>>>>>>> worrying
>>>>>>> > that
>>>>>>> > > I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > wouldn't
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > able
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > cover
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true
>>>>>>> thin-clients:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > default:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > address:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
>>>>>>> > > > 127.0.0.1:10801"
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "
>>>>>>> > 127.0.0.1:10800
>>>>>>> > > "
>>>>>>> > > > > > > - "
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > "
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current
>>>>>>> > snapshot
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> documentation:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16
>>>>>>> PM Denis
>>>>>>> > > > > Magda <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for
>>>>>>> filling out the
>>>>>>> > > > wiki
>>>>>>> > > > > > > page.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the
>>>>>>> > Auto-Configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > wiki
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> section
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > current
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the
>>>>>>> > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can
>>>>>>> perform the
>>>>>>> > > > > following
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> changes:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the
>>>>>>> > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > as
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it's
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > done
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this
>>>>>>> change is
>>>>>>> > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > developers
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > might
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> > > > integration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > scope
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Ignite
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters
>>>>>>> - the
>>>>>>> > > "name"
>>>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> "path".
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > replace
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the
>>>>>>> "config" one
>>>>>>> > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> instantiates
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>>> > > > > > If
>>>>>>> > > > > > > we
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> do
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > that,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > then
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any
>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>> > > of
>>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> > done
>>>>>>> > > > for
>>>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Ignite
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Spring
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Boot
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the
>>>>>>> same with
>>>>>>> > > > > > Micronaut.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous
>>>>>>> modification
>>>>>>> > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > feasible,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > then I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > rework
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client
>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > similarly,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > taking
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > our
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Spring
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the
>>>>>>> thin client
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I
>>>>>>> see, the
>>>>>>> > > > current
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > version
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> > only
>>>>>>> > > > > > rename
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > "configuration"
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the
>>>>>>> "transaction" field
>>>>>>> > > since
>>>>>>> > > > > you
>>>>>>> > > > > > > can
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> pass
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML
>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>> > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > format
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> below:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses:
>>>>>>> <IP_addresses>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> partitionAwarenessEnabled:
>>>>>>> > > true
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> transactionConfiguration:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > defaultTxConcurrency:...
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> defaultTxTimeout
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at
>>>>>>> 6:50 PM
>>>>>>> > > Michael
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Pollind <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more
>>>>>>> sense. so
>>>>>>> > those
>>>>>>> > > > > > methods
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > get
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrapped
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > into a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept.
>>>>>>> Below
>>>>>>> > I've
>>>>>>> > > > > > listed
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > sections
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each
>>>>>>> annotation
>>>>>>> > > > along
>>>>>>> > > > > > > with
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > methods
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > get
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch
>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>> > working
>>>>>>> > > > > from.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Hopefully
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > helps.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the
>>>>>>> CacheConfig
>>>>>>> > > > > annotation
>>>>>>> > > > > > > but
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> this
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > can
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > changed
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to
>>>>>>> represent the
>>>>>>> > > key.
>>>>>>> > > > > By
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> default
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > it
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > uses
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > this
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > interceptor/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this
>>>>>>> document
>>>>>>> > on
>>>>>>> > > > > > sunday:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with
>>>>>>> what I could
>>>>>>> > > > > expand
>>>>>>> > > > > > on
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > how
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > could
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will
>>>>>>> run a get
>>>>>>> > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > issue a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> put if
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > value
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will
>>>>>>> invalidate
>>>>>>> > if
>>>>>>> > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > return
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > null
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > else
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > it
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might
>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>> > > mistake
>>>>>>> > > > > in
>>>>>>> > > > > > my
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> code
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > because I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > use
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to
>>>>>>> > > investigate
>>>>>>> > > > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> closer
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > write
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the
>>>>>>> > behaviour.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation
>>>>>>> it will
>>>>>>> > just
>>>>>>> > > > be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > removed
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> by
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > key.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at
>>>>>>> 5:23 PM
>>>>>>> > > > Saikat
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > Maitra <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example
>>>>>>> Cacheable Object
>>>>>>> > > you
>>>>>>> > > > > are
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > using
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > @CachePut,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and
>>>>>>> > @CacheInvalidate
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > annotations
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > was
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > trying
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these
>>>>>>> annotation
>>>>>>> > > then
>>>>>>> > > > > > what
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> would
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > underlying
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will
>>>>>>> happen? and
>>>>>>> > > how
>>>>>>> > > > > > those
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > operations
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > are
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when
>>>>>>> user call
>>>>>>> > > this
>>>>>>> > > > > > below
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> method
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > then
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > how
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int
>>>>>>> getValue(String name) {
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > 0
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > })
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020
>>>>>>> at 7:21 PM
>>>>>>> > > > > Michael
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pollind
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > <
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these
>>>>>>> > annotations
>>>>>>> > > > do
>>>>>>> > > > > > you
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > mean
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > this
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in
>>>>>>> ignite?
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the
>>>>>>> moment is
>>>>>>> > > > split
>>>>>>> > > > > > into
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > multiple
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > modules.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc
>>>>>>> ... The
>>>>>>> > plan
>>>>>>> > > > was
>>>>>>> > > > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > also
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-data
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work
>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>> > > working
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > correctly
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > basic
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is
>>>>>>> also to
>>>>>>> > > verify
>>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > API
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > described
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what
>>>>>>> would work
>>>>>>> > > > best.
>>>>>>> > > > > At
>>>>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > moment
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > missing
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> > > thin-cache
>>>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > how
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > would
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > fit
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > into
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due
>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>> > > added
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > complexity
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > sure
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would
>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I
>>>>>>> have it
>>>>>>> > as
>>>>>>> > > a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > separate
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > module
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a
>>>>>>> micronaut
>>>>>>> > project
>>>>>>> > > > > where
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > this
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > module
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > also
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > has a
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The
>>>>>>> > AsyncCache
>>>>>>> > > > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> SyncCache
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > are
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > two
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache
>>>>>>> defines.
>>>>>>> > There
>>>>>>> > > > are
>>>>>>> > > > > > two
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ways to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > define
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either
>>>>>>> provide beans
>>>>>>> > > for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > AsyncCache
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > SyncCache
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > but
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a
>>>>>>> DynamicCacheManager
>>>>>>> > > that
>>>>>>> > > > > > will
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > use
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > name
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > of
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> > cache
>>>>>>> > > > > used.
>>>>>>> > > > > > In
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > the
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > documentation
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a
>>>>>>> list of
>>>>>>> > > > caches
>>>>>>> > > > > > you
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> want
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> --
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> -
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Denis
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
here is the release:
https://search.maven.org/artifact/io.micronaut.ignite/micronaut-ignite-core/1.0.0.RC1/jar
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:16 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> looks like I was wrong, will have to wait till this PR get merged and a
> release is made in the repo.
>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/pull/4070
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:01 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The caching is setup in the branch and the release candidate is already
>> out I think. can't think of anything off the top of my head with tweaking
>> the ignite cache module but i'm sure a few adjustments can be made.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:41 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael, congrats, it was a pleasure working with you!
>>>
>>> Let us know once the release candidate is published. I'll go ahead and
>>> update my tutorial, and would probably create a separate blog post for
>>> DZone or Dev.to:
>>>
>>> https://www.gridgain.com/docs/tutorials/micronaut/getting-started/ignite-micronaut-getting-started
>>>
>>> Are you planning to work on the Micronaut Caching module? Or is it
>>> already enabled and we just need to prepare examples on how to use Ignite
>>> as a Micronaut cache?
>>>
>>> -
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:17 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> With some help from @Denis Magda <dm...@gridgain.com>, we were able
>>>> to rework micronaut-ignite and a release candidate was approved. I'm
>>>> pretty happy with this first pass and there is a lot more that can be added
>>>> but this is a good initial first step.
>>>>
>>>> documentation can be bound here:
>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>>>> PR: https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 5:32 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not sure, I would probably bring that up in the PR so the micronaut
>>>>> devs are aware of this. Not sure how the CI will work and what can be
>>>>> arranged in this case.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The docs look good enough for the release. Once the integration is
>>>>>> released, I'll update and extend my Micronaut tutorial elucidating on
>>>>>> how
>>>>>> to use the integration in practice for various use cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Btw, are the ignite-core and ignite-cache Maven artifacts will be
>>>>>> released
>>>>>> for a specific version of Ignite? Ideally, the version of Ignite
>>>>>> needs to
>>>>>> be set in a pom.xml and the Micronaut integration should pick them up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, what are we doing next - reviewing APIs of the ignite-cache
>>>>>> module or
>>>>>> going through a review process of the ignite-core and merging it
>>>>>> first to
>>>>>> the Micronaut repository?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Also you need to sign the CLA since you add a commit to my branch.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > branch:
>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework
>>>>>> > linked PR:
>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --
>>>>>> > Michael Pollind
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > > Could you share the full path to the branch? Don't want to pick a
>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>> > one
>>>>>> > > accidentally.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > -
>>>>>> > > Denis
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:47 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > so that clears up the extra flag for micronaut-cache. just need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> > > > intercept the default IgniteConfiguration bean and update the
>>>>>> > > > configuration. if you pull my latest changes from the rework
>>>>>> branch you
>>>>>> > > can
>>>>>> > > > look at the docs for that micronaut module. `./gradlew docs`.
>>>>>> > Finalizing
>>>>>> > > > the docs should be the last part of this. The configuration
>>>>>> from my
>>>>>> > > > perspective seems pretty much there. Is there anything else
>>>>>> that is
>>>>>> > > > missing?
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:31 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > 👍 Nice catch!
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > -
>>>>>> > > > > Denis
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > One thing that just occurred to me for the
>>>>>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>> > > > > you
>>>>>> > > > > > can actually just intercept the bean when it's created.
>>>>>> This should
>>>>>> > > let
>>>>>> > > > > us
>>>>>> > > > > > use the enable flag from ignite-core for ignite-cache
>>>>>> without the
>>>>>> > > > > > additional flag.
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > @Singleton
>>>>>> > > > > > public class IgniteConfigurationFactoryInterceptor
>>>>>> implements
>>>>>> > > > > > BeanCreatedEventListener<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> {
>>>>>> > > > > > @Override
>>>>>> > > > > > public IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > onCreated(BeanCreatedEvent<DefaultIgniteConfiguration>
>>>>>> event) {
>>>>>> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration configuration = event.getBean();
>>>>>> > > > > > configuration.setIgniteInstanceName("instance-a");
>>>>>> > > > > > return configuration;
>>>>>> > > > > > }
>>>>>> > > > > > }
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Denis Magda <
>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > Michael,
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > Looks terrific! I went ahead and grouped the configuration
>>>>>> > samples
>>>>>> > > > by a
>>>>>> > > > > > > client type:
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > As you see, the "Ignite Thin Client" section is blank for
>>>>>> now.
>>>>>> > > Would
>>>>>> > > > > you
>>>>>> > > > > > > mind filling it with configuration options following the
>>>>>> format
>>>>>> > > taken
>>>>>> > > > > for
>>>>>> > > > > > > the thick client?
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > Ping me here once you're ready to review the API and
>>>>>> > implementation
>>>>>> > > > of
>>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > ignite-caching module.
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > -
>>>>>> > > > > > > Denis
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:16 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > Here is a sample project I threw together and I've also
>>>>>> updated
>>>>>> > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > wiki
>>>>>> > > > > > > > just a bit. working on updating the documentation on the
>>>>>> > > micronaut
>>>>>> > > > > end.
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>> > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config.
>>>>>> splitting it
>>>>>> > into
>>>>>> > > > two
>>>>>> > > > > > > > modules
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> > like
>>>>>> > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > random
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your
>>>>>> > provider:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > kind of strange that there are not getters for the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to
>>>>>> verify
>>>>>> > > that
>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've
>>>>>> written.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > static ip finder
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.enabled" :
>>>>>> true,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
>>>>>> > > > > > "localhost:1800",
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" :
>>>>>> "true",
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]":
>>>>>> "
>>>>>> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:47500
>>>>>> > > > > > > ",
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]":
>>>>>> "
>>>>>> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:47501
>>>>>> > > > > > > ",
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > kubernetties ip finder
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.enabled"
>>>>>> : true,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
>>>>>> > > > > > > "localhost:1800",
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" :
>>>>>> > "true",
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace":
>>>>>> > > > "HelloWorld"
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>>> > dmagda@apache.org
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Michael,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the
>>>>>> ignite-cache
>>>>>> > > > module
>>>>>> > > > > in
>>>>>> > > > > > > two
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> (one for a thick-client based connection and the
>>>>>> other for
>>>>>> > > thin
>>>>>> > > > > > client
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> connections), and would try to avoid this route if
>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut
>>>>>> developers can
>>>>>> > > > create
>>>>>> > > > > a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> generic
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite
>>>>>> connectivity
>>>>>> > > > > methods,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > which
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache
>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>> > can
>>>>>> > > > > > decide
>>>>>> > > > > > > > what
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client
>>>>>> one,
>>>>>> > depends
>>>>>> > > > on
>>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > type
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of a client you started with our auto-configuration
>>>>>> > feature).
>>>>>> > > > > Let’s
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> discuss
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> all the existing issues here and jump on another
>>>>>> call to
>>>>>> > > > finalize
>>>>>> > > > > a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> solution if needed.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Denis
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <
>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Michael,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went
>>>>>> ahead and
>>>>>> > > > > pushed
>>>>>> > > > > > > some
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see,
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> > changes
>>>>>> > > > do
>>>>>> > > > > > some
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> minor
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>>> class
>>>>>> > and
>>>>>> > > > add
>>>>>> > > > > > > > Static
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the
>>>>>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > class.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > The
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think
>>>>>> we'll
>>>>>> > > > figure
>>>>>> > > > > > how
>>>>>> > > > > > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > modify the test on the call today.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure
>>>>>> IgniteCaches
>>>>>> > via
>>>>>> > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Micronaut
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration. If an application needs to create
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> > caches,
>>>>>> > > > it
>>>>>> > > > > > can
>>>>>> > > > > > > do
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> this
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > -
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Denis
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> > these
>>>>>> > > > can
>>>>>> > > > > > be
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > provided through a factory.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @Bean
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @Named("default")
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @Primary
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > public IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>>> > configuration,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration>
>>>>>> cacheConfigurations,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration>
>>>>>> > > executorConfigurations,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Optional<PlatformConfiguration>
>>>>>> platformConfigurations,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > Optional<CollisionSpi>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> collisionSpi,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > Collection<FailoverSpi>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> failoverSpis,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > @ConsistencyId
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > @IgniteLifecycle
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> CacheConfiguration[0]))
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new
>>>>>> > > > > > > PluginProvider[0]))
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new
>>>>>> > > > > FailoverSpi[0]))
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new
>>>>>> > > > > > > > LifecycleBean[0]))
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > return configuration;
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks
>>>>>> like now.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > ignite:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > enabled: true
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > comunication-spi:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > local-port: 5555
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > cache-configurations:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > - accounts:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > key-type: String
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > - books:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > table-name: BOOKS
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > key-type: String
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object if
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> > > static
>>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > nested
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will
>>>>>> not work
>>>>>> > > in
>>>>>> > > > > this
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> case. So
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the
>>>>>> > > environment.
>>>>>> > > > > > This
>>>>>> > > > > > > > is a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > working example but this can be adjusted. I guess
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> > would
>>>>>> > > > have
>>>>>> > > > > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > be
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>> > > > > > > DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum
>>>>>> working
>>>>>> > > > setup
>>>>>> > > > > > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> then
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
>>>>>> "dataStorageConfiguration",
>>>>>> > > > > > excludes =
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> "dataRegionConfigurations")
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > final DataStorageConfiguration
>>>>>> dataStorageConfiguration =
>>>>>> > > new
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> DataStorageConfiguration();
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration
>>>>>> dataRegionConfiguration = new
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> DataRegionConfiguration();
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > public DataRegionConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > getDataRegionConfiguration()
>>>>>> > > > > {
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Dennis,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have
>>>>>> missed it
>>>>>> > > because
>>>>>> > > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> didn't
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is
>>>>>> fine, but
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ClientConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > is a final class so that can't be extended from.
>>>>>> This PR
>>>>>> > is
>>>>>> > > > > > starting
>>>>>> > > > > > > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to
>>>>>> update the
>>>>>> > > > > > > documentation.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > other thing I did was add a flag for the
>>>>>> associated cache
>>>>>> > to
>>>>>> > > > use
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit
>>>>>> and see
>>>>>> > If I
>>>>>> > > > can
>>>>>> > > > > > > work
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> out
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but
>>>>>> you can
>>>>>> > > > > provide
>>>>>> > > > > > > your
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> own
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > [image: image.png]
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>>> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Michael,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks, for verifying.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but
>>>>>> couldn't get
>>>>>> > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with
>>>>>> ConfigurationBuilder.
>>>>>> > Instead
>>>>>> > > > > they
>>>>>> > > > > > > are
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> just
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the
>>>>>> default
>>>>>> > > > > configuration
>>>>>> > > > > > > for
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> its
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of
>>>>>> Hazelcast
>>>>>> > > core:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig,
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> > > > > Micronaut's
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following
>>>>>> > > > configuration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > parameteres:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > > parent
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ClientConfig
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes =
>>>>>> > > > > {"properties",
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext",
>>>>>> > "clusterName"}*
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig,
>>>>>> > > SocketOptions
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> properties
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class)
>>>>>> can not
>>>>>> > be
>>>>>> > > > > > > inherited
>>>>>> > > > > > > > as
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > above. Thus, they define those with
>>>>>> > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>>>> > > > > > > manually.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > As a result, their implementation is simple and
>>>>>> compact,
>>>>>> > and
>>>>>> > > > > here
>>>>>> > > > > > > is a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > final list of configuration properties:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Could you check if we can follow a similar
>>>>>> approach? Let's
>>>>>> > > > start
>>>>>> > > > > > > with
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > thin client. It's much simpler.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > yea, will need to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> > > > there
>>>>>> > > > > > is
>>>>>> > > > > > > no
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> way
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I
>>>>>> haven't quite
>>>>>> > > > worked
>>>>>> > > > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> out
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > yet.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design.
>>>>>> Let me
>>>>>> > > know
>>>>>> > > > if
>>>>>> > > > > > you
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> need
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > me to help to figure out how to do that with
>>>>>> Micronaut.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > -
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Denis
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > Dennis,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > This is what I came up with with some of the
>>>>>> > suggestions:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > test cases:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but
>>>>>> couldn't
>>>>>> > get
>>>>>> > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with
>>>>>> ConfigurationBuilder.
>>>>>> > Instead
>>>>>> > > > > they
>>>>>> > > > > > > are
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> just
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ConfigurationProperty
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the
>>>>>> table in the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> documentation is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> > > think
>>>>>> > > > > this
>>>>>> > > > > > > > will
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > work
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest
>>>>>> > > > @EachProperty
>>>>>> > > > > > in
>>>>>> > > > > > > a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > single
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work
>>>>>> with how
>>>>>> > > > stuff
>>>>>> > > > > > gets
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > resolved
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > (
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938
>>>>>> > > > > > > ).
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> so
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is
>>>>>> kind of a
>>>>>> > > > first
>>>>>> > > > > > > > working
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a
>>>>>> bit.
>>>>>> > yea,
>>>>>> > > > > will
>>>>>> > > > > > > need
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> > > > there
>>>>>> > > > > > is
>>>>>> > > > > > > no
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> way
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I
>>>>>> haven't quite
>>>>>> > > > worked
>>>>>> > > > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> out
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > yet.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the
>>>>>> > > confluence.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>>> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Michael,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration
>>>>>> > > > > specificities.
>>>>>> > > > > > > What
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > confused
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > me before, is that even though the beans
>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>> > > in
>>>>>> > > > > > > > Micronaut
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > looks
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the
>>>>>> former
>>>>>> > > > > > automates
>>>>>> > > > > > > a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> lot
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > with
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> > > default
>>>>>> > > > > > Spring
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Boot
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration looks
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users
>>>>>> define any
>>>>>> > > > possible
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> property
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > of
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > an
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this
>>>>>> example
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > The upside of the reflection.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's
>>>>>> what I
>>>>>> > would
>>>>>> > > > > > suggest.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - Let's create
>>>>>> DefaultThinClientConfiguration that
>>>>>> > > > > > *extends*
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Ignite's
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > ClientConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > ClientConfiguration.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Once done, it will be possible to configure
>>>>>> most of
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > ClientConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess
>>>>>> that's
>>>>>> > how
>>>>>> > > > you
>>>>>> > > > > > > were
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> doing
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > before I joined the review)
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration
>>>>>> class are
>>>>>> > of
>>>>>> > > > > > custom
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > non-primitive types and should be added
>>>>>> into the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly
>>>>>> via the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType,
>>>>>> sslProtocol,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration,
>>>>>> can we
>>>>>> > > > > support
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> another
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration approach when a
>>>>>> ClientConfiguration bean
>>>>>> > > is
>>>>>> > > > > > > created
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > programmatically in the source code and the
>>>>>> > integration
>>>>>> > > > uses
>>>>>> > > > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> bean
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client
>>>>>> (instead of
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that
>>>>>> requires to
>>>>>> > > set
>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > properties
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the
>>>>>> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> bean
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > programmatically
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite
>>>>>> > object.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the
>>>>>> numerous
>>>>>> > > > > > > configuration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > .
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > most
>>>>>> > > > > > > frequently
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> used
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation.
>>>>>> However, it
>>>>>> > seems
>>>>>> > > > > > > > reasonable
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> if
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's
>>>>>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> (so
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of
>>>>>> primitive
>>>>>> > > types).
>>>>>> > > > > > Based
>>>>>> > > > > > > > on
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> my
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > experience, I would add the following settings
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> > custom
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> non-primitive
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > types:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> > > done
>>>>>> > > > > > > easily,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > right,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder
>>>>>> field. In the
>>>>>> > > > > > > beginning,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > I
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > would
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > only
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >via
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > including
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions
>>>>>> property.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here
>>>>>> is I'm
>>>>>> > > > > assuming
>>>>>> > > > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> we
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > can
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > do
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through
>>>>>> > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > (include)
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > or inheritence.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings
>>>>>> > unsupported
>>>>>> > > by
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should
>>>>>> be a way
>>>>>> > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > create
>>>>>> > > > > > > > an
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and
>>>>>> use it
>>>>>> > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > initialize
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> an
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Ignite instance (instead of
>>>>>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still
>>>>>> missing
>>>>>> > > > > > > something.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > -
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Denis
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for
>>>>>> ehcache[1]
>>>>>> > and
>>>>>> > > > > > network
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> options
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > for
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can
>>>>>> implement
>>>>>> > > > something
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> similar to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > [1]
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > [2]
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Let me know what you think.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Regards,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Saikat
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael
>>>>>> Pollind <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through
>>>>>> > > > > > experimentation.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > You
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> can
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > ask
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty
>>>>>> comprehensive:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>>> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html
>>>>>> > .
>>>>>> > > > look
>>>>>> > > > > > for
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also
>>>>>> hunt
>>>>>> > through
>>>>>> > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > current
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > existing
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those
>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>> > > > items
>>>>>> > > > > > are
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> setup.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > There
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in
>>>>>> micronaut-core
>>>>>> > which
>>>>>> > > > have
>>>>>> > > > > > > been
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > pretty
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how
>>>>>> some of
>>>>>> > these
>>>>>> > > > > > > > annotations
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > work
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > in
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > practice.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis
>>>>>> Magda <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Michael,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the
>>>>>> possible
>>>>>> > > quantity
>>>>>> > > > of
>>>>>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > instances
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to
>>>>>> > > > > auto-configure a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> single
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instance
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > only.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the
>>>>>> > > > > configuration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> matters
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > of
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what
>>>>>> I can
>>>>>> > > > suggest.
>>>>>> > > > > > > Could
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> you
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > recommend
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on
>>>>>> Micronaut
>>>>>> > > > > > configuration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > specifies
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via
>>>>>> source
>>>>>> > > code)?
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Denis
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael
>>>>>> Pollind <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able
>>>>>> to infer
>>>>>> > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > communicationSpi,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > so
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > you
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as
>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration
>>>>>> should look
>>>>>> > > > pretty
>>>>>> > > > > > > much
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> like
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the
>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>> > easier
>>>>>> > > > with
>>>>>> > > > > > > just
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > allowing
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > single
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with
>>>>>> > spring-boot
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> configuration:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then
>>>>>> having
>>>>>> > > that
>>>>>> > > > as
>>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > default
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > use
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > case
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the
>>>>>> definition will
>>>>>> > > work
>>>>>> > > > > as
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> follows:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable true
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - ...
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable: false
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to
>>>>>> enforce the
>>>>>> > > > presence
>>>>>> > > > > > of
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > something
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis
>>>>>> Magda <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> dmagda@apache.org
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Michael,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > > primary
>>>>>> > > > > > bean
>>>>>> > > > > > > is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> used
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > by
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > so
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use
>>>>>> micronaut-cache
>>>>>> > > with
>>>>>> > > > > > > anything
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> but
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> > if
>>>>>> > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > present.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm
>>>>>> convinced
>>>>>> > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > we
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > shouldn't
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > bother
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > about
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several
>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>> > > > > instances.
>>>>>> > > > > > > As I
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> said
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > before,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case.
>>>>>> Furthermore,
>>>>>> > > > > > Micronout
>>>>>> > > > > > > is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > designed
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > for
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless
>>>>>> functions and
>>>>>> > I
>>>>>> > > > can
>>>>>> > > > > > > hardly
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > think
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > of a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > use
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or
>>>>>> function would
>>>>>> > > need
>>>>>> > > > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > boot
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> up
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > several
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ignite
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to
>>>>>> auto-configure a
>>>>>> > > > single
>>>>>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > instance
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > per
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your
>>>>>> view on
>>>>>> > this?
>>>>>> > > > It
>>>>>> > > > > > will
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > significantly
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and
>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>> > > > > > integration.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > If
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > anybody
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > needs
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can
>>>>>> > > > instantiate
>>>>>> > > > > > them
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > manually.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > By default the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > > > > thin-client
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > DynamicCache
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > if
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above,
>>>>>> then I
>>>>>> > > would
>>>>>> > > > > > simply
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > disallow
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite
>>>>>> instance
>>>>>> > > (let
>>>>>> > > > > it
>>>>>> > > > > > > be a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > thick
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > thin
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick
>>>>>> client is
>>>>>> > > > already
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> started,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > then
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > throw
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > an
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to
>>>>>> initialize a thin
>>>>>> > > > > client
>>>>>> > > > > > > (and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> vice
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > versa).
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > As
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in
>>>>>> relation
>>>>>> > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > Micronaut,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> I
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > would
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > recommend
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is
>>>>>> > deployed
>>>>>> > > > in
>>>>>> > > > > a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > serverless
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > function
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the
>>>>>> cluster
>>>>>> > > > faster),
>>>>>> > > > > > > while
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> for
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > micro-services
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the
>>>>>> spring
>>>>>> > > bean
>>>>>> > > > > > > > definition
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > was
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > mainly
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what
>>>>>> fields
>>>>>> > are
>>>>>> > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > most
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > relevant.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some
>>>>>> important
>>>>>> > > point
>>>>>> > > > > > about
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > Micronaut.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Let
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > me
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>> > > igniteConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > =
>>>>>> > > > > > new
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the
>>>>>> > communicationSpi
>>>>>> > > > bean
>>>>>> > > > > > > below
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > without
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > having
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > it
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as a field of the
>>>>>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration?
>>>>>> > > > Are
>>>>>> > > > > > you
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > getting a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ignite:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> > > SPI}
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Denis
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>> > > > Pollind <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I
>>>>>> quickly
>>>>>> > > threw
>>>>>> > > > > > > > together
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > along
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > with
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like
>>>>>> this might
>>>>>> > > > get a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > little
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > complicated
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but I
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>> > > > > Pollind <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > spring
>>>>>> > > > bean
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> definition
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > was
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mainly
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what
>>>>>> fields
>>>>>> > > are
>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > most
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Will
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > have
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the
>>>>>> > > > configuration
>>>>>> > > > > > > might
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> get a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > little
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you
>>>>>> can do
>>>>>> > is
>>>>>> > > > use
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and
>>>>>> values and
>>>>>> > > you
>>>>>> > > > > can
>>>>>> > > > > > > > pass
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > somewhere
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> > this
>>>>>> > > as
>>>>>> > > > > > > > follows:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > igniteConfiguration =
>>>>>> > > > > > > new
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
>>>>>> > > > > "communicationSpi")
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi
>>>>>> > > communicationSpi
>>>>>> > > > =
>>>>>> > > > > > new
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>> > > > > Pollind
>>>>>> > > > > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> > the
>>>>>> > > > > object
>>>>>> > > > > > > is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > declared. I
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > think
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > we
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple
>>>>>> > > > > > ConfigurationBuilders
>>>>>> > > > > > > > If
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> i'm
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > not
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > mistaken
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you
>>>>>> don't need
>>>>>> > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > provide
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > name
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > since
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each
>>>>>> > configuration
>>>>>> > > > > under
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers
>>>>>> to that
>>>>>> > > bean
>>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > also
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > same
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the
>>>>>> most part
>>>>>> > > will
>>>>>> > > > > just
>>>>>> > > > > > > use
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > primary
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > bean
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only
>>>>>> have one
>>>>>> > > > cache
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> instance
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > active
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > time.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup
>>>>>> is the
>>>>>> > > > primary
>>>>>> > > > > > > bean
>>>>>> > > > > > > > is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > used
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > by
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > so
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use
>>>>>> micronaut-cache
>>>>>> > > > with
>>>>>> > > > > > > > anything
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override
>>>>>> the other
>>>>>> > > if
>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > configuration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > present.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is
>>>>>> micronaut-cache. We
>>>>>> > > can
>>>>>> > > > > > only
>>>>>> > > > > > > > use
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> one
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > instance
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to
>>>>>> verify how
>>>>>> > that
>>>>>> > > > > works
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> again.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > By
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > default
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will
>>>>>> replace the
>>>>>> > > > > > thin-client
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DynamicCache
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > if
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM
>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>> > > > Magda <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need
>>>>>> to work
>>>>>> > > > with
>>>>>> > > > > > > > multiple
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master
>>>>>> branch.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a
>>>>>> single
>>>>>> > > > instance
>>>>>> > > > > > of
>>>>>> > > > > > > a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> thick
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > thin
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are
>>>>>> > > multi-threaded
>>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > can
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > utilize
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > all
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > CPUs
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not
>>>>>> harmful
>>>>>> > to
>>>>>> > > > > have
>>>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > ability
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > configure
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per
>>>>>> application. As far
>>>>>> > > as
>>>>>> > > > I
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> understand,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Micronaut
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > property,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for
>>>>>> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration?
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut
>>>>>> what those
>>>>>> > > > > defaults
>>>>>> > > > > > > > are?
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> By
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > looking
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of
>>>>>> "configuration"), I
>>>>>> > > see
>>>>>> > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Micronaut
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > could
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the
>>>>>> > ClientConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> prepared
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > these
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properties
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever
>>>>>> I am
>>>>>> > > > > configuring
>>>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> thin
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > client
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an
>>>>>> instance
>>>>>> > > of
>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> > > override
>>>>>> > > > > > some
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > settings
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > such
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > as
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or
>>>>>> > > "enablePartitionAwareness".
>>>>>> > > > > Does
>>>>>> > > > > > > > this
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > sound
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > accurate
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the
>>>>>> > IgniteConfiguration,
>>>>>> > > I
>>>>>> > > > > > would
>>>>>> > > > > > > > just
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > swap
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > "path"
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config"
>>>>>> that is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > IgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Then
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > let
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the
>>>>>> > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > defaults
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > allow a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> discoverySPI.ipFinder
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > memory
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you
>>>>>> can find
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > defaults
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > here
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>> > > > > > Pollind <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need
>>>>>> to work
>>>>>> > > > with
>>>>>> > > > > > > > multiple
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master
>>>>>> branch.
>>>>>> > I
>>>>>> > > > > > believe
>>>>>> > > > > > > I
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> was
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > originally
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > > default
>>>>>> > > > > > > ignite
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > instance
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > but
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > found
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the
>>>>>> > > > configuration.
>>>>>> > > > > > So
>>>>>> > > > > > > > what
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > defaults
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > are
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> > > > factory
>>>>>> > > > > > > items
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> can't
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > be
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > covered
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up
>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationProperty
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > can
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > only
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory,
>>>>>> there are
>>>>>> > > > ways
>>>>>> > > > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > have
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > multiple
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > factories
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that
>>>>>> easily
>>>>>> > > gets
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> overwhelming.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > In
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would
>>>>>> > probably
>>>>>> > > be
>>>>>> > > > > > more
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ideal
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > in
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was
>>>>>> worrying
>>>>>> > that
>>>>>> > > I
>>>>>> > > > > > > wouldn't
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> be
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > able
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > cover
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true
>>>>>> thin-clients:
>>>>>> > > > > > > default:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > address:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
>>>>>> > > > 127.0.0.1:10801"
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "
>>>>>> > 127.0.0.1:10800
>>>>>> > > "
>>>>>> > > > > > > - "
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > "
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current
>>>>>> > snapshot
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> documentation:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16
>>>>>> PM Denis
>>>>>> > > > > Magda <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling
>>>>>> out the
>>>>>> > > > wiki
>>>>>> > > > > > > page.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the
>>>>>> > Auto-Configuration
>>>>>> > > > > wiki
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> section
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > current
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the
>>>>>> > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can
>>>>>> perform the
>>>>>> > > > > following
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> changes:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the
>>>>>> > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > as
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it's
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > done
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this
>>>>>> change is
>>>>>> > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > developers
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > might
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the
>>>>>> > > > integration
>>>>>> > > > > > > scope
>>>>>> > > > > > > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Ignite
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters
>>>>>> - the
>>>>>> > > "name"
>>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> "path".
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > I
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > replace
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the
>>>>>> "config" one
>>>>>> > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> instantiates
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>> > > > > > If
>>>>>> > > > > > > we
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> do
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > that,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > then
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any
>>>>>> property
>>>>>> > > of
>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> > done
>>>>>> > > > for
>>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Ignite
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Spring
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Boot
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the
>>>>>> same with
>>>>>> > > > > > Micronaut.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous
>>>>>> modification
>>>>>> > is
>>>>>> > > > > > > feasible,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > then I
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > rework
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client
>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>> > > > > > > similarly,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > taking
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > our
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Spring
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin
>>>>>> client
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I
>>>>>> see, the
>>>>>> > > > current
>>>>>> > > > > > > > version
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> > only
>>>>>> > > > > > rename
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > "configuration"
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction"
>>>>>> field
>>>>>> > > since
>>>>>> > > > > you
>>>>>> > > > > > > can
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> pass
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML
>>>>>> following
>>>>>> > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > format
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> below:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses:
>>>>>> <IP_addresses>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> partitionAwarenessEnabled:
>>>>>> > > true
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> transactionConfiguration:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > defaultTxConcurrency:...
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at
>>>>>> 6:50 PM
>>>>>> > > Michael
>>>>>> > > > > > > > Pollind <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more
>>>>>> sense. so
>>>>>> > those
>>>>>> > > > > > methods
>>>>>> > > > > > > > get
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrapped
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > into a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept.
>>>>>> Below
>>>>>> > I've
>>>>>> > > > > > listed
>>>>>> > > > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > sections
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each
>>>>>> annotation
>>>>>> > > > along
>>>>>> > > > > > > with
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > methods
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > get
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm
>>>>>> > working
>>>>>> > > > > from.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Hopefully
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > helps.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the
>>>>>> CacheConfig
>>>>>> > > > > annotation
>>>>>> > > > > > > but
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> this
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > can
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > changed
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to
>>>>>> represent the
>>>>>> > > key.
>>>>>> > > > > By
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> default
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > it
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > uses
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > this
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > interceptor/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this
>>>>>> document
>>>>>> > on
>>>>>> > > > > > sunday:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what
>>>>>> I could
>>>>>> > > > > expand
>>>>>> > > > > > on
>>>>>> > > > > > > > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > how
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > could
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > be
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run
>>>>>> a get
>>>>>> > and
>>>>>> > > > > > issue a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> put if
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > value
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will
>>>>>> invalidate
>>>>>> > if
>>>>>> > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > return
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > null
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > else
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > it
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might
>>>>>> be a
>>>>>> > > mistake
>>>>>> > > > > in
>>>>>> > > > > > my
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> code
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > because I
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > use
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to
>>>>>> > > investigate
>>>>>> > > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> closer
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > write
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the
>>>>>> > behaviour.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> > just
>>>>>> > > > be
>>>>>> > > > > > > > removed
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> by
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > key.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at
>>>>>> 5:23 PM
>>>>>> > > > Saikat
>>>>>> > > > > > > > Maitra <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example
>>>>>> Cacheable Object
>>>>>> > > you
>>>>>> > > > > are
>>>>>> > > > > > > > using
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > @CachePut,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and
>>>>>> > @CacheInvalidate
>>>>>> > > > > > > > annotations
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and I
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > was
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > trying
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these
>>>>>> annotation
>>>>>> > > then
>>>>>> > > > > > what
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> would
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > be
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > underlying
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will
>>>>>> happen? and
>>>>>> > > how
>>>>>> > > > > > those
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > operations
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > are
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when
>>>>>> user call
>>>>>> > > this
>>>>>> > > > > > below
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> method
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > then
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > how
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String
>>>>>> name) {
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > 0
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > })
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at
>>>>>> 7:21 PM
>>>>>> > > > > Michael
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pollind
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > <
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these
>>>>>> > annotations
>>>>>> > > > do
>>>>>> > > > > > you
>>>>>> > > > > > > > mean
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > this
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the
>>>>>> moment is
>>>>>> > > > split
>>>>>> > > > > > into
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > multiple
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > modules.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ...
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> > plan
>>>>>> > > > was
>>>>>> > > > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > also
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-data
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> > > working
>>>>>> > > > > > > > correctly
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > basic
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is
>>>>>> also to
>>>>>> > > verify
>>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > API
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > described
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what
>>>>>> would work
>>>>>> > > > best.
>>>>>> > > > > At
>>>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > moment
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > missing
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the
>>>>>> > > thin-cache
>>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > how
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > would
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > fit
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > into
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due
>>>>>> to the
>>>>>> > > added
>>>>>> > > > > > > > complexity
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > sure
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would
>>>>>> work.
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I
>>>>>> have it
>>>>>> > as
>>>>>> > > a
>>>>>> > > > > > > separate
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > module
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a
>>>>>> micronaut
>>>>>> > project
>>>>>> > > > > where
>>>>>> > > > > > > > this
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > module
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > also
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > has a
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The
>>>>>> > AsyncCache
>>>>>> > > > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> SyncCache
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > are
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > two
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache
>>>>>> defines.
>>>>>> > There
>>>>>> > > > are
>>>>>> > > > > > two
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ways to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > define
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either
>>>>>> provide beans
>>>>>> > > for
>>>>>> > > > > > > > AsyncCache
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > SyncCache
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > but
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a
>>>>>> DynamicCacheManager
>>>>>> > > that
>>>>>> > > > > > will
>>>>>> > > > > > > > use
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > name
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > of
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > cache
>>>>>> > > > > used.
>>>>>> > > > > > In
>>>>>> > > > > > > > the
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > documentation
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a
>>>>>> list of
>>>>>> > > > caches
>>>>>> > > > > > you
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> want
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> --
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> -
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Denis
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>>> > > > >
>>>>>> > > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
looks like I was wrong, will have to wait till this PR get merged and a
release is made in the repo.
https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/pull/4070
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:01 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The caching is setup in the branch and the release candidate is already
> out I think. can't think of anything off the top of my head with tweaking
> the ignite cache module but i'm sure a few adjustments can be made.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:41 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Michael, congrats, it was a pleasure working with you!
>>
>> Let us know once the release candidate is published. I'll go ahead and
>> update my tutorial, and would probably create a separate blog post for
>> DZone or Dev.to:
>>
>> https://www.gridgain.com/docs/tutorials/micronaut/getting-started/ignite-micronaut-getting-started
>>
>> Are you planning to work on the Micronaut Caching module? Or is it
>> already enabled and we just need to prepare examples on how to use Ignite
>> as a Micronaut cache?
>>
>> -
>> Denis
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:17 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> With some help from @Denis Magda <dm...@gridgain.com>, we were able to
>>> rework micronaut-ignite and a release candidate was approved. I'm pretty
>>> happy with this first pass and there is a lot more that can be added but
>>> this is a good initial first step.
>>>
>>> documentation can be bound here:
>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>>> PR: https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 5:32 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not sure, I would probably bring that up in the PR so the micronaut
>>>> devs are aware of this. Not sure how the CI will work and what can be
>>>> arranged in this case.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>
>>>>> The docs look good enough for the release. Once the integration is
>>>>> released, I'll update and extend my Micronaut tutorial elucidating on
>>>>> how
>>>>> to use the integration in practice for various use cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Btw, are the ignite-core and ignite-cache Maven artifacts will be
>>>>> released
>>>>> for a specific version of Ignite? Ideally, the version of Ignite needs
>>>>> to
>>>>> be set in a pom.xml and the Micronaut integration should pick them up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, what are we doing next - reviewing APIs of the ignite-cache
>>>>> module or
>>>>> going through a review process of the ignite-core and merging it first
>>>>> to
>>>>> the Micronaut repository?
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Denis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Also you need to sign the CLA since you add a commit to my branch.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > branch:
>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework
>>>>> > linked PR:
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Michael Pollind
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > Could you share the full path to the branch? Don't want to pick a
>>>>> wrong
>>>>> > one
>>>>> > > accidentally.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > -
>>>>> > > Denis
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:47 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > > so that clears up the extra flag for micronaut-cache. just need
>>>>> to
>>>>> > > > intercept the default IgniteConfiguration bean and update the
>>>>> > > > configuration. if you pull my latest changes from the rework
>>>>> branch you
>>>>> > > can
>>>>> > > > look at the docs for that micronaut module. `./gradlew docs`.
>>>>> > Finalizing
>>>>> > > > the docs should be the last part of this. The configuration
>>>>> from my
>>>>> > > > perspective seems pretty much there. Is there anything else that
>>>>> is
>>>>> > > > missing?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:31 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > 👍 Nice catch!
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > -
>>>>> > > > > Denis
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > One thing that just occurred to me for the
>>>>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>> > > > > you
>>>>> > > > > > can actually just intercept the bean when it's created. This
>>>>> should
>>>>> > > let
>>>>> > > > > us
>>>>> > > > > > use the enable flag from ignite-core for ignite-cache
>>>>> without the
>>>>> > > > > > additional flag.
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > @Singleton
>>>>> > > > > > public class IgniteConfigurationFactoryInterceptor implements
>>>>> > > > > > BeanCreatedEventListener<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> {
>>>>> > > > > > @Override
>>>>> > > > > > public IgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > onCreated(BeanCreatedEvent<DefaultIgniteConfiguration>
>>>>> event) {
>>>>> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration configuration = event.getBean();
>>>>> > > > > > configuration.setIgniteInstanceName("instance-a");
>>>>> > > > > > return configuration;
>>>>> > > > > > }
>>>>> > > > > > }
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Denis Magda <
>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > Michael,
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > Looks terrific! I went ahead and grouped the configuration
>>>>> > samples
>>>>> > > > by a
>>>>> > > > > > > client type:
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > As you see, the "Ignite Thin Client" section is blank for
>>>>> now.
>>>>> > > Would
>>>>> > > > > you
>>>>> > > > > > > mind filling it with configuration options following the
>>>>> format
>>>>> > > taken
>>>>> > > > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > the thick client?
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > Ping me here once you're ready to review the API and
>>>>> > implementation
>>>>> > > > of
>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > ignite-caching module.
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > -
>>>>> > > > > > > Denis
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:16 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > Here is a sample project I threw together and I've also
>>>>> updated
>>>>> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > wiki
>>>>> > > > > > > > just a bit. working on updating the documentation on the
>>>>> > > micronaut
>>>>> > > > > end.
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > > yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config. splitting
>>>>> it
>>>>> > into
>>>>> > > > two
>>>>> > > > > > > > modules
>>>>> > > > > > > > > seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't
>>>>> really
>>>>> > like
>>>>> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > random
>>>>> > > > > > > > > boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your
>>>>> > provider:
>>>>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > > kind of strange that there are not getters for the
>>>>> > > > > > > > > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to
>>>>> verify
>>>>> > > that
>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > > correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've
>>>>> written.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > > static ip finder
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.enabled" :
>>>>> true,
>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
>>>>> > > > > > "localhost:1800",
>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" :
>>>>> "true",
>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "
>>>>> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:47500
>>>>> > > > > > > ",
>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "
>>>>> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:47501
>>>>> > > > > > > ",
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > > kubernetties ip finder
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.enabled" :
>>>>> true,
>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
>>>>> > > > > > > "localhost:1800",
>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" :
>>>>> > "true",
>>>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace":
>>>>> > > > "HelloWorld"
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>> > dmagda@apache.org
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Michael,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the
>>>>> ignite-cache
>>>>> > > > module
>>>>> > > > > in
>>>>> > > > > > > two
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> (one for a thick-client based connection and the
>>>>> other for
>>>>> > > thin
>>>>> > > > > > client
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> connections), and would try to avoid this route if
>>>>> possible.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut
>>>>> developers can
>>>>> > > > create
>>>>> > > > > a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> generic
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite
>>>>> connectivity
>>>>> > > > > methods,
>>>>> > > > > > > > which
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache
>>>>> implementation
>>>>> > can
>>>>> > > > > > decide
>>>>> > > > > > > > what
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one,
>>>>> > depends
>>>>> > > > on
>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > type
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of a client you started with our auto-configuration
>>>>> > feature).
>>>>> > > > > Let’s
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> discuss
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> all the existing issues here and jump on another call
>>>>> to
>>>>> > > > finalize
>>>>> > > > > a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> solution if needed.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Denis
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <
>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Michael,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went
>>>>> ahead and
>>>>> > > > > pushed
>>>>> > > > > > > some
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those
>>>>> > changes
>>>>> > > > do
>>>>> > > > > > some
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> minor
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>> class
>>>>> > and
>>>>> > > > add
>>>>> > > > > > > > Static
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the
>>>>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > class.
>>>>> > > > > > > > The
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think
>>>>> we'll
>>>>> > > > figure
>>>>> > > > > > how
>>>>> > > > > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > modify the test on the call today.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure
>>>>> IgniteCaches
>>>>> > via
>>>>> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Micronaut
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration. If an application needs to create any
>>>>> > caches,
>>>>> > > > it
>>>>> > > > > > can
>>>>> > > > > > > do
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > -
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Denis
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is
>>>>> that
>>>>> > these
>>>>> > > > can
>>>>> > > > > > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > provided through a factory.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @Bean
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @Named("default")
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @Primary
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > public IgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > configuration,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration>
>>>>> cacheConfigurations,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration>
>>>>> > > executorConfigurations,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Optional<PlatformConfiguration>
>>>>> platformConfigurations,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > Optional<CollisionSpi>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> collisionSpi,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > Collection<FailoverSpi>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> failoverSpis,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > @ConsistencyId
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > @IgniteLifecycle
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> CacheConfiguration[0]))
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new
>>>>> > > > > > > PluginProvider[0]))
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new
>>>>> > > > > FailoverSpi[0]))
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new
>>>>> > > > > > > > LifecycleBean[0]))
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > return configuration;
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks like
>>>>> now.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > ignite:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > enabled: true
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > comunication-spi:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > local-port: 5555
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > cache-configurations:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > - accounts:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > key-type: String
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > - books:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > table-name: BOOKS
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > key-type: String
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object if
>>>>> its
>>>>> > > static
>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>> > > > > > > > nested
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will
>>>>> not work
>>>>> > > in
>>>>> > > > > this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> case. So
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the
>>>>> > > environment.
>>>>> > > > > > This
>>>>> > > > > > > > is a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > working example but this can be adjusted. I guess
>>>>> it
>>>>> > would
>>>>> > > > have
>>>>> > > > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>> > > > > > > DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum
>>>>> working
>>>>> > > > setup
>>>>> > > > > > and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> then
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
>>>>> "dataStorageConfiguration",
>>>>> > > > > > excludes =
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> "dataRegionConfigurations")
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > final DataStorageConfiguration
>>>>> dataStorageConfiguration =
>>>>> > > new
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> DataStorageConfiguration();
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration
>>>>> = new
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> DataRegionConfiguration();
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > public DataRegionConfiguration
>>>>> > > > getDataRegionConfiguration()
>>>>> > > > > {
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Dennis,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed
>>>>> it
>>>>> > > because
>>>>> > > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> didn't
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine,
>>>>> but
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > is a final class so that can't be extended from.
>>>>> This PR
>>>>> > is
>>>>> > > > > > starting
>>>>> > > > > > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to update
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > > > > > documentation.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > other thing I did was add a flag for the associated
>>>>> cache
>>>>> > to
>>>>> > > > use
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and
>>>>> see
>>>>> > If I
>>>>> > > > can
>>>>> > > > > > > work
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> out
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but
>>>>> you can
>>>>> > > > > provide
>>>>> > > > > > > your
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> own
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > [image: image.png]
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Michael,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks, for verifying.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but
>>>>> couldn't get
>>>>> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder.
>>>>> > Instead
>>>>> > > > > they
>>>>> > > > > > > are
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> just
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default
>>>>> > > > > configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> its
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of
>>>>> Hazelcast
>>>>> > > core:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig,
>>>>> their
>>>>> > > > > Micronaut's
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following
>>>>> > > > configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > parameteres:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong to
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > parent
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ClientConfig
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes =
>>>>> > > > > {"properties",
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext",
>>>>> > "clusterName"}*
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig,
>>>>> > > SocketOptions
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> properties
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class)
>>>>> can not
>>>>> > be
>>>>> > > > > > > inherited
>>>>> > > > > > > > as
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > above. Thus, they define those with
>>>>> > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>>> > > > > > > manually.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > As a result, their implementation is simple and
>>>>> compact,
>>>>> > and
>>>>> > > > > here
>>>>> > > > > > > is a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > final list of configuration properties:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Could you check if we can follow a similar
>>>>> approach? Let's
>>>>> > > > start
>>>>> > > > > > > with
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > thin client. It's much simpler.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > yea, will need to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean
>>>>> because
>>>>> > > > there
>>>>> > > > > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > no
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> way
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't
>>>>> quite
>>>>> > > > worked
>>>>> > > > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> out
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > yet.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design.
>>>>> Let me
>>>>> > > know
>>>>> > > > if
>>>>> > > > > > you
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> need
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > me to help to figure out how to do that with
>>>>> Micronaut.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > -
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Denis
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > Dennis,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > This is what I came up with with some of the
>>>>> > suggestions:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > test cases:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but
>>>>> couldn't
>>>>> > get
>>>>> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder.
>>>>> > Instead
>>>>> > > > > they
>>>>> > > > > > > are
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> just
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't
>>>>> think
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ConfigurationProperty
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table
>>>>> in the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> documentation is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> > > think
>>>>> > > > > this
>>>>> > > > > > > > will
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > work
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest
>>>>> > > > @EachProperty
>>>>> > > > > > in
>>>>> > > > > > > a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > single
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work
>>>>> with how
>>>>> > > > stuff
>>>>> > > > > > gets
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > resolved
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > (
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938
>>>>> > > > > > > ).
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> so
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is
>>>>> kind of a
>>>>> > > > first
>>>>> > > > > > > > working
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a
>>>>> bit.
>>>>> > yea,
>>>>> > > > > will
>>>>> > > > > > > need
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean
>>>>> because
>>>>> > > > there
>>>>> > > > > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > no
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> way
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't
>>>>> quite
>>>>> > > > worked
>>>>> > > > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> out
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > yet.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the
>>>>> > > confluence.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Michael,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration
>>>>> > > > > specificities.
>>>>> > > > > > > What
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > confused
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > me before, is that even though the beans
>>>>> configuration
>>>>> > > in
>>>>> > > > > > > > Micronaut
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > looks
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the
>>>>> former
>>>>> > > > > > automates
>>>>> > > > > > > a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> lot
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > with
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how
>>>>> our
>>>>> > > default
>>>>> > > > > > Spring
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Boot
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration looks
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users define
>>>>> any
>>>>> > > > possible
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> property
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > an
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > The upside of the reflection.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what
>>>>> I
>>>>> > would
>>>>> > > > > > suggest.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - Let's create
>>>>> DefaultThinClientConfiguration that
>>>>> > > > > > *extends*
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Ignite's
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > ClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > ClientConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Once done, it will be possible to configure
>>>>> most of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > ClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess
>>>>> that's
>>>>> > how
>>>>> > > > you
>>>>> > > > > > > were
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> doing
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > before I joined the review)
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration
>>>>> class are
>>>>> > of
>>>>> > > > > > custom
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > non-primitive types and should be added into
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly
>>>>> via the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType,
>>>>> sslProtocol,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration,
>>>>> can we
>>>>> > > > > support
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> another
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration approach when a
>>>>> ClientConfiguration bean
>>>>> > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > created
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > programmatically in the source code and the
>>>>> > integration
>>>>> > > > uses
>>>>> > > > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> bean
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client
>>>>> (instead of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that
>>>>> requires to
>>>>> > > set
>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > properties
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the
>>>>> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> bean
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > programmatically
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite
>>>>> > object.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the
>>>>> numerous
>>>>> > > > > > > configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > .
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select
>>>>> the
>>>>> > most
>>>>> > > > > > > frequently
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> used
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However,
>>>>> it
>>>>> > seems
>>>>> > > > > > > > reasonable
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> if
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's
>>>>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> (so
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of
>>>>> primitive
>>>>> > > types).
>>>>> > > > > > Based
>>>>> > > > > > > > on
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> my
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > experience, I would add the following settings
>>>>> of
>>>>> > custom
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> non-primitive
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > types:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this
>>>>> should be
>>>>> > > done
>>>>> > > > > > > easily,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > right,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field.
>>>>> In the
>>>>> > > > > > > beginning,
>>>>> > > > > > > > I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > would
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > only
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >via
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > including
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions
>>>>> property.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here
>>>>> is I'm
>>>>> > > > > assuming
>>>>> > > > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> we
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > can
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > do
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through
>>>>> > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > (include)
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > or inheritence.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings
>>>>> > unsupported
>>>>> > > by
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should
>>>>> be a way
>>>>> > > to
>>>>> > > > > > create
>>>>> > > > > > > > an
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and
>>>>> use it
>>>>> > to
>>>>> > > > > > > initialize
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> an
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Ignite instance (instead of
>>>>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still
>>>>> missing
>>>>> > > > > > > something.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > -
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Denis
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for
>>>>> ehcache[1]
>>>>> > and
>>>>> > > > > > network
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> options
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can
>>>>> implement
>>>>> > > > something
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> similar to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > [1]
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > [2]
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Let me know what you think.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Regards,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Saikat
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael
>>>>> Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through
>>>>> > > > > > experimentation.
>>>>> > > > > > > > You
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> can
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > ask
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty
>>>>> comprehensive:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html
>>>>> > .
>>>>> > > > look
>>>>> > > > > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt
>>>>> > through
>>>>> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > current
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > existing
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those
>>>>> configuration
>>>>> > > > items
>>>>> > > > > > are
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> setup.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > There
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in
>>>>> micronaut-core
>>>>> > which
>>>>> > > > have
>>>>> > > > > > > been
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > pretty
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some
>>>>> of
>>>>> > these
>>>>> > > > > > > > annotations
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > work
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > in
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > practice.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda
>>>>> <
>>>>> > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Michael,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible
>>>>> > > quantity
>>>>> > > > of
>>>>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > instances
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to
>>>>> > > > > auto-configure a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> single
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instance
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > only.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the
>>>>> > > > > configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> matters
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I
>>>>> can
>>>>> > > > suggest.
>>>>> > > > > > > Could
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> you
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > recommend
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on
>>>>> Micronaut
>>>>> > > > > > configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > specifies
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via
>>>>> source
>>>>> > > code)?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Denis
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael
>>>>> Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to
>>>>> infer
>>>>> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > communicationSpi,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > so
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > you
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration
>>>>> should look
>>>>> > > > pretty
>>>>> > > > > > > much
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> like
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration
>>>>> > easier
>>>>> > > > with
>>>>> > > > > > > just
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > allowing
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > single
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with
>>>>> > spring-boot
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> configuration:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then
>>>>> having
>>>>> > > that
>>>>> > > > as
>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > default
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > use
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > case
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the
>>>>> definition will
>>>>> > > work
>>>>> > > > > as
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> follows:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable true
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - ...
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable: false
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > > presence
>>>>> > > > > > of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > something
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis
>>>>> Magda <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> dmagda@apache.org
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Michael,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > primary
>>>>> > > > > > bean
>>>>> > > > > > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> used
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > by
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > so
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use
>>>>> micronaut-cache
>>>>> > > with
>>>>> > > > > > > anything
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> but
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the
>>>>> other
>>>>> > if
>>>>> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > present.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm
>>>>> convinced
>>>>> > > > that
>>>>> > > > > we
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > shouldn't
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > bother
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > about
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several
>>>>> Ignite
>>>>> > > > > instances.
>>>>> > > > > > > As I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> said
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > before,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case.
>>>>> Furthermore,
>>>>> > > > > > Micronout
>>>>> > > > > > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > designed
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless
>>>>> functions and
>>>>> > I
>>>>> > > > can
>>>>> > > > > > > hardly
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > think
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > of a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > use
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function
>>>>> would
>>>>> > > need
>>>>> > > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > boot
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> up
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > several
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to
>>>>> auto-configure a
>>>>> > > > single
>>>>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > instance
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > per
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your view
>>>>> on
>>>>> > this?
>>>>> > > > It
>>>>> > > > > > will
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > significantly
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and
>>>>> implementation of
>>>>> > > > > > integration.
>>>>> > > > > > > > If
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > anybody
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > needs
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can
>>>>> > > > instantiate
>>>>> > > > > > them
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > manually.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > By default the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > > > thin-client
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > DynamicCache
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > if
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above,
>>>>> then I
>>>>> > > would
>>>>> > > > > > simply
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > disallow
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite
>>>>> instance
>>>>> > > (let
>>>>> > > > > it
>>>>> > > > > > > be a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > thick
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > thin
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick
>>>>> client is
>>>>> > > > already
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> started,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > then
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > throw
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > an
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize
>>>>> a thin
>>>>> > > > > client
>>>>> > > > > > > (and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> vice
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > versa).
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > As
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in
>>>>> relation
>>>>> > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > Micronaut,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > would
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > recommend
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is
>>>>> > deployed
>>>>> > > > in
>>>>> > > > > a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > serverless
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > function
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the
>>>>> cluster
>>>>> > > > faster),
>>>>> > > > > > > while
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > micro-services
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the
>>>>> spring
>>>>> > > bean
>>>>> > > > > > > > definition
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > was
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > mainly
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what
>>>>> fields
>>>>> > are
>>>>> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > most
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > relevant.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some
>>>>> important
>>>>> > > point
>>>>> > > > > > about
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > Micronaut.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Let
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > me
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > igniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > =
>>>>> > > > > > new
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the
>>>>> > communicationSpi
>>>>> > > > bean
>>>>> > > > > > > below
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > without
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > having
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > it
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as a field of the
>>>>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration?
>>>>> > > > Are
>>>>> > > > > > you
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > getting a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ignite:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields
>>>>> of the
>>>>> > > SPI}
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Denis
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM
>>>>> Michael
>>>>> > > > Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I
>>>>> quickly
>>>>> > > threw
>>>>> > > > > > > > together
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > along
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > with
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like
>>>>> this might
>>>>> > > > get a
>>>>> > > > > > > > little
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > complicated
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM
>>>>> Michael
>>>>> > > > > Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the
>>>>> > spring
>>>>> > > > bean
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> definition
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > was
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mainly
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what
>>>>> fields
>>>>> > > are
>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > most
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Will
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > have
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the
>>>>> > > > configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > might
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> get a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > little
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you
>>>>> can do
>>>>> > is
>>>>> > > > use
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and
>>>>> values and
>>>>> > > you
>>>>> > > > > can
>>>>> > > > > > > > pass
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > somewhere
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something
>>>>> like
>>>>> > this
>>>>> > > as
>>>>> > > > > > > > follows:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > igniteConfiguration =
>>>>> > > > > > > new
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
>>>>> > > > > "communicationSpi")
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi
>>>>> > > communicationSpi
>>>>> > > > =
>>>>> > > > > > new
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM
>>>>> Michael
>>>>> > > > > Pollind
>>>>> > > > > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default
>>>>> when
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > > > > object
>>>>> > > > > > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > declared. I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > think
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > we
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple
>>>>> > > > > > ConfigurationBuilders
>>>>> > > > > > > > If
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> i'm
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > not
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > mistaken
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you
>>>>> don't need
>>>>> > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > provide
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > name
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > since
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each
>>>>> > configuration
>>>>> > > > > under
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to
>>>>> that
>>>>> > > bean
>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>> > > > > > > also
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > same
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most
>>>>> part
>>>>> > > will
>>>>> > > > > just
>>>>> > > > > > > use
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > primary
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > bean
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only
>>>>> have one
>>>>> > > > cache
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> instance
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > active
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > time.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup
>>>>> is the
>>>>> > > > primary
>>>>> > > > > > > bean
>>>>> > > > > > > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > used
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > by
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > so
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use
>>>>> micronaut-cache
>>>>> > > > with
>>>>> > > > > > > > anything
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override
>>>>> the other
>>>>> > > if
>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > present.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is
>>>>> micronaut-cache. We
>>>>> > > can
>>>>> > > > > > only
>>>>> > > > > > > > use
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> one
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > instance
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify
>>>>> how
>>>>> > that
>>>>> > > > > works
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> again.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > By
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > default
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will
>>>>> replace the
>>>>> > > > > > thin-client
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DynamicCache
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > if
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM
>>>>> Denis
>>>>> > > > Magda <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need
>>>>> to work
>>>>> > > > with
>>>>> > > > > > > > multiple
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master
>>>>> branch.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a
>>>>> single
>>>>> > > > instance
>>>>> > > > > > of
>>>>> > > > > > > a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> thick
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > thin
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are
>>>>> > > multi-threaded
>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>> > > > > > > can
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > utilize
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > all
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > CPUs
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not
>>>>> harmful
>>>>> > to
>>>>> > > > > have
>>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > ability
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > configure
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application.
>>>>> As far
>>>>> > > as
>>>>> > > > I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> understand,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Micronaut
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > property,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for
>>>>> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what
>>>>> those
>>>>> > > > > defaults
>>>>> > > > > > > > are?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> By
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > looking
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of
>>>>> "configuration"), I
>>>>> > > see
>>>>> > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > Micronaut
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > could
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the
>>>>> > ClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> prepared
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > these
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properties
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I
>>>>> am
>>>>> > > > > configuring
>>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> thin
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > client
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an
>>>>> instance
>>>>> > > of
>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I
>>>>> can
>>>>> > > override
>>>>> > > > > > some
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > settings
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > such
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > as
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or
>>>>> > > "enablePartitionAwareness".
>>>>> > > > > Does
>>>>> > > > > > > > this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > sound
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > accurate
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the
>>>>> > IgniteConfiguration,
>>>>> > > I
>>>>> > > > > > would
>>>>> > > > > > > > just
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > swap
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > "path"
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config"
>>>>> that is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > IgniteConfiguration.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Then
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > let
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the
>>>>> > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > defaults
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > allow a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such
>>>>> as
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> discoverySPI.ipFinder
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > memory
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can
>>>>> find
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > defaults
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > here
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM
>>>>> Michael
>>>>> > > > > > Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need
>>>>> to work
>>>>> > > > with
>>>>> > > > > > > > multiple
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master
>>>>> branch.
>>>>> > I
>>>>> > > > > > believe
>>>>> > > > > > > I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> was
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > originally
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > default
>>>>> > > > > > > ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > instance
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > but
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > found
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the
>>>>> > > > configuration.
>>>>> > > > > > So
>>>>> > > > > > > > what
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > defaults
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > are
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of
>>>>> those
>>>>> > > > factory
>>>>> > > > > > > items
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> can't
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > covered
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up
>>>>> configurations.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationProperty
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > can
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > only
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory,
>>>>> there are
>>>>> > > > ways
>>>>> > > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > have
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > multiple
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > factories
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that
>>>>> easily
>>>>> > > gets
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> overwhelming.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > In
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would
>>>>> > probably
>>>>> > > be
>>>>> > > > > > more
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ideal
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > in
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was
>>>>> worrying
>>>>> > that
>>>>> > > I
>>>>> > > > > > > wouldn't
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > able
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > cover
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true
>>>>> thin-clients:
>>>>> > > > > > > default:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > address:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
>>>>> > > > 127.0.0.1:10801"
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "
>>>>> > 127.0.0.1:10800
>>>>> > > "
>>>>> > > > > > > - "
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > "
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current
>>>>> > snapshot
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> documentation:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16
>>>>> PM Denis
>>>>> > > > > Magda <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling
>>>>> out the
>>>>> > > > wiki
>>>>> > > > > > > page.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the
>>>>> > Auto-Configuration
>>>>> > > > > wiki
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> section
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > current
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the
>>>>> > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > > > following
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> changes:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the
>>>>> > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > as
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it's
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > done
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this
>>>>> change is
>>>>> > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > developers
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > might
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the
>>>>> > > > integration
>>>>> > > > > > > scope
>>>>> > > > > > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters -
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > "name"
>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> "path".
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > replace
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the
>>>>> "config" one
>>>>> > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> instantiates
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration.
>>>>> > > > > > If
>>>>> > > > > > > we
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> do
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > that,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > then
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any
>>>>> property
>>>>> > > of
>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how
>>>>> it's
>>>>> > done
>>>>> > > > for
>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Spring
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Boot
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same
>>>>> with
>>>>> > > > > > Micronaut.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous
>>>>> modification
>>>>> > is
>>>>> > > > > > > feasible,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > then I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > rework
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client
>>>>> configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > similarly,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > taking
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > our
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Spring
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin
>>>>> client
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see,
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > > current
>>>>> > > > > > > > version
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I
>>>>> would
>>>>> > only
>>>>> > > > > > rename
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > "configuration"
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction"
>>>>> field
>>>>> > > since
>>>>> > > > > you
>>>>> > > > > > > can
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> pass
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML
>>>>> following
>>>>> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > format
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> below:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses:
>>>>> <IP_addresses>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> partitionAwarenessEnabled:
>>>>> > > true
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> transactionConfiguration:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > defaultTxConcurrency:...
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50
>>>>> PM
>>>>> > > Michael
>>>>> > > > > > > > Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense.
>>>>> so
>>>>> > those
>>>>> > > > > > methods
>>>>> > > > > > > > get
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrapped
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > into a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept.
>>>>> Below
>>>>> > I've
>>>>> > > > > > listed
>>>>> > > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > sections
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each
>>>>> annotation
>>>>> > > > along
>>>>> > > > > > > with
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > methods
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > get
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm
>>>>> > working
>>>>> > > > > from.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Hopefully
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > helps.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the
>>>>> CacheConfig
>>>>> > > > > annotation
>>>>> > > > > > > but
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > can
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > changed
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to
>>>>> represent the
>>>>> > > key.
>>>>> > > > > By
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> default
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > it
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > uses
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > interceptor/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this
>>>>> document
>>>>> > on
>>>>> > > > > > sunday:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what
>>>>> I could
>>>>> > > > > expand
>>>>> > > > > > on
>>>>> > > > > > > > and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > how
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > could
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run
>>>>> a get
>>>>> > and
>>>>> > > > > > issue a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> put if
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > value
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will
>>>>> invalidate
>>>>> > if
>>>>> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > return
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > null
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > else
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > it
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might
>>>>> be a
>>>>> > > mistake
>>>>> > > > > in
>>>>> > > > > > my
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> code
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > because I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > use
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to
>>>>> > > investigate
>>>>> > > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> closer
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > write
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the
>>>>> > behaviour.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it
>>>>> will
>>>>> > just
>>>>> > > > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > removed
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> by
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > key.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at
>>>>> 5:23 PM
>>>>> > > > Saikat
>>>>> > > > > > > > Maitra <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable
>>>>> Object
>>>>> > > you
>>>>> > > > > are
>>>>> > > > > > > > using
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > @CachePut,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and
>>>>> > @CacheInvalidate
>>>>> > > > > > > > annotations
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > was
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > trying
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these
>>>>> annotation
>>>>> > > then
>>>>> > > > > > what
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> would
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > underlying
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will
>>>>> happen? and
>>>>> > > how
>>>>> > > > > > those
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > operations
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > are
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when
>>>>> user call
>>>>> > > this
>>>>> > > > > > below
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> method
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > then
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > how
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String
>>>>> name) {
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > 0
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > })
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at
>>>>> 7:21 PM
>>>>> > > > > Michael
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Pollind
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these
>>>>> > annotations
>>>>> > > > do
>>>>> > > > > > you
>>>>> > > > > > > > mean
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the
>>>>> moment is
>>>>> > > > split
>>>>> > > > > > into
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > multiple
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > modules.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ...
>>>>> The
>>>>> > plan
>>>>> > > > was
>>>>> > > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > also
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > have
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-data
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to
>>>>> get
>>>>> > > working
>>>>> > > > > > > > correctly
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > basic
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also
>>>>> to
>>>>> > > verify
>>>>> > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > API
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > described
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what
>>>>> would work
>>>>> > > > best.
>>>>> > > > > At
>>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > moment
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > missing
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the
>>>>> > > thin-cache
>>>>> > > > > and
>>>>> > > > > > > how
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > would
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > fit
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > into
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > added
>>>>> > > > > > > > complexity
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > sure
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would
>>>>> work.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I
>>>>> have it
>>>>> > as
>>>>> > > a
>>>>> > > > > > > separate
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > module
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut
>>>>> > project
>>>>> > > > > where
>>>>> > > > > > > > this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > module
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > also
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > has a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The
>>>>> > AsyncCache
>>>>> > > > and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> SyncCache
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > are
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > two
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache
>>>>> defines.
>>>>> > There
>>>>> > > > are
>>>>> > > > > > two
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> ways to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > define
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide
>>>>> beans
>>>>> > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > AsyncCache
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > SyncCache
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > but
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a
>>>>> DynamicCacheManager
>>>>> > > that
>>>>> > > > > > will
>>>>> > > > > > > > use
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > name
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of
>>>>> the
>>>>> > cache
>>>>> > > > > used.
>>>>> > > > > > In
>>>>> > > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > documentation
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a
>>>>> list of
>>>>> > > > caches
>>>>> > > > > > you
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> want
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> --
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> -
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> Denis
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Michael, congrats, it was a pleasure working with you!
Let us know once the release candidate is published. I'll go ahead and
update my tutorial, and would probably create a separate blog post for
DZone or Dev.to:
https://www.gridgain.com/docs/tutorials/micronaut/getting-started/ignite-micronaut-getting-started
Are you planning to work on the Micronaut Caching module? Or is it
already enabled and we just need to prepare examples on how to use Ignite
as a Micronaut cache?
-
Denis
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:17 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With some help from @Denis Magda <dm...@gridgain.com>, we were able to
> rework micronaut-ignite and a release candidate was approved. I'm pretty
> happy with this first pass and there is a lot more that can be added but
> this is a good initial first step.
>
> documentation can be bound here:
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> PR: https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 5:32 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Not sure, I would probably bring that up in the PR so the micronaut devs
>> are aware of this. Not sure how the CI will work and what can be arranged
>> in this case.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> The docs look good enough for the release. Once the integration is
>>> released, I'll update and extend my Micronaut tutorial elucidating on how
>>> to use the integration in practice for various use cases.
>>>
>>> Btw, are the ignite-core and ignite-cache Maven artifacts will be
>>> released
>>> for a specific version of Ignite? Ideally, the version of Ignite needs to
>>> be set in a pom.xml and the Micronaut integration should pick them up.
>>>
>>> Also, what are we doing next - reviewing APIs of the ignite-cache module
>>> or
>>> going through a review process of the ignite-core and merging it first to
>>> the Micronaut repository?
>>>
>>> -
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Also you need to sign the CLA since you add a commit to my branch.
>>> >
>>> > branch:
>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework
>>> > linked PR:
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Michael Pollind
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Could you share the full path to the branch? Don't want to pick a
>>> wrong
>>> > one
>>> > > accidentally.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > -
>>> > > Denis
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:47 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > so that clears up the extra flag for micronaut-cache. just need to
>>> > > > intercept the default IgniteConfiguration bean and update the
>>> > > > configuration. if you pull my latest changes from the rework
>>> branch you
>>> > > can
>>> > > > look at the docs for that micronaut module. `./gradlew docs`.
>>> > Finalizing
>>> > > > the docs should be the last part of this. The configuration from
>>> my
>>> > > > perspective seems pretty much there. Is there anything else that is
>>> > > > missing?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:31 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > 👍 Nice catch!
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > -
>>> > > > > Denis
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > >
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > One thing that just occurred to me for the
>>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>> > > > > you
>>> > > > > > can actually just intercept the bean when it's created. This
>>> should
>>> > > let
>>> > > > > us
>>> > > > > > use the enable flag from ignite-core for ignite-cache without
>>> the
>>> > > > > > additional flag.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > @Singleton
>>> > > > > > public class IgniteConfigurationFactoryInterceptor implements
>>> > > > > > BeanCreatedEventListener<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> {
>>> > > > > > @Override
>>> > > > > > public IgniteConfiguration
>>> > > > > > onCreated(BeanCreatedEvent<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> event) {
>>> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration configuration = event.getBean();
>>> > > > > > configuration.setIgniteInstanceName("instance-a");
>>> > > > > > return configuration;
>>> > > > > > }
>>> > > > > > }
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Denis Magda <
>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Michael,
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Looks terrific! I went ahead and grouped the configuration
>>> > samples
>>> > > > by a
>>> > > > > > > client type:
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > >
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > As you see, the "Ignite Thin Client" section is blank for
>>> now.
>>> > > Would
>>> > > > > you
>>> > > > > > > mind filling it with configuration options following the
>>> format
>>> > > taken
>>> > > > > for
>>> > > > > > > the thick client?
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Ping me here once you're ready to review the API and
>>> > implementation
>>> > > > of
>>> > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > ignite-caching module.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > -
>>> > > > > > > Denis
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:16 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > Here is a sample project I threw together and I've also
>>> updated
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > wiki
>>> > > > > > > > just a bit. working on updating the documentation on the
>>> > > micronaut
>>> > > > > end.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config. splitting it
>>> > into
>>> > > > two
>>> > > > > > > > modules
>>> > > > > > > > > seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't really
>>> > like
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > random
>>> > > > > > > > > boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your
>>> > provider:
>>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > kind of strange that there are not getters for the
>>> > > > > > > > > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to
>>> verify
>>> > > that
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > > correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've written.
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > static ip finder
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.enabled" :
>>> true,
>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
>>> > > > > > "localhost:1800",
>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" :
>>> "true",
>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "
>>> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:47500
>>> > > > > > > ",
>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "
>>> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:47501
>>> > > > > > > ",
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > kubernetties ip finder
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.enabled" :
>>> true,
>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
>>> > > > > > > "localhost:1800",
>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" :
>>> > "true",
>>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace":
>>> > > > "HelloWorld"
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <
>>> > dmagda@apache.org
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> Michael,
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the
>>> ignite-cache
>>> > > > module
>>> > > > > in
>>> > > > > > > two
>>> > > > > > > > >> (one for a thick-client based connection and the other
>>> for
>>> > > thin
>>> > > > > > client
>>> > > > > > > > >> connections), and would try to avoid this route if
>>> possible.
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut developers
>>> can
>>> > > > create
>>> > > > > a
>>> > > > > > > > >> generic
>>> > > > > > > > >> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite
>>> connectivity
>>> > > > > methods,
>>> > > > > > > > which
>>> > > > > > > > >> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache
>>> implementation
>>> > can
>>> > > > > > decide
>>> > > > > > > > what
>>> > > > > > > > >> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one,
>>> > depends
>>> > > > on
>>> > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > type
>>> > > > > > > > >> of a client you started with our auto-configuration
>>> > feature).
>>> > > > > Let’s
>>> > > > > > > > >> discuss
>>> > > > > > > > >> all the existing issues here and jump on another call to
>>> > > > finalize
>>> > > > > a
>>> > > > > > > > >> solution if needed.
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> Denis
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <
>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > Michael,
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went
>>> ahead and
>>> > > > > pushed
>>> > > > > > > some
>>> > > > > > > > >> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those
>>> > changes
>>> > > > do
>>> > > > > > some
>>> > > > > > > > >> minor
>>> > > > > > > > >> > tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>> class
>>> > and
>>> > > > add
>>> > > > > > > > Static
>>> > > > > > > > >> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the
>>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>> > > > > > class.
>>> > > > > > > > The
>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think
>>> we'll
>>> > > > figure
>>> > > > > > how
>>> > > > > > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > modify the test on the call today.
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure
>>> IgniteCaches
>>> > via
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> Micronaut
>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration. If an application needs to create any
>>> > caches,
>>> > > > it
>>> > > > > > can
>>> > > > > > > do
>>> > > > > > > > >> this
>>> > > > > > > > >> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > -
>>> > > > > > > > >> > Denis
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that
>>> > these
>>> > > > can
>>> > > > > > be
>>> > > > > > > > >> > provided through a factory.
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > @Bean
>>> > > > > > > > >> > @Named("default")
>>> > > > > > > > >> > @Primary
>>> > > > > > > > >> > public IgniteConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>> > configuration,
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration>
>>> cacheConfigurations,
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration>
>>> > > executorConfigurations,
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > Optional<CollisionSpi>
>>> > > > > > > > >> collisionSpi,
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > Collection<FailoverSpi>
>>> > > > > > > > >> failoverSpis,
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > @ConsistencyId
>>> > > > > > > > >> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > @IgniteLifecycle
>>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
>>> > > > > > > > >> CacheConfiguration[0]))
>>> > > > > > > > >> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new
>>> > > > > > > PluginProvider[0]))
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
>>> > > > > > > > >> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
>>> > > > > > > > >> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new
>>> > > > > FailoverSpi[0]))
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
>>> > > > > > > > >> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
>>> > > > > > > > >> > .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
>>> > > > > > > > >> > .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new
>>> > > > > > > > LifecycleBean[0]))
>>> > > > > > > > >> > .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
>>> > > > > > > > >> > return configuration;
>>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <
>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks like
>>> now.
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > ignite:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > enabled: true
>>> > > > > > > > >> > comunication-spi:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > local-port: 5555
>>> > > > > > > > >> > cache-configurations:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > - accounts:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
>>> > > > > > > > >> > key-type: String
>>> > > > > > > > >> > - books:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > table-name: BOOKS
>>> > > > > > > > >> > key-type: String
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its
>>> > > static
>>> > > > > and
>>> > > > > > > > nested
>>> > > > > > > > >> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not
>>> work
>>> > > in
>>> > > > > this
>>> > > > > > > > >> case. So
>>> > > > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the
>>> > > environment.
>>> > > > > > This
>>> > > > > > > > is a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it
>>> > would
>>> > > > have
>>> > > > > > to
>>> > > > > > > be
>>> > > > > > > > >> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>> > > > > > > DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum
>>> working
>>> > > > setup
>>> > > > > > and
>>> > > > > > > > >> then
>>> > > > > > > > >> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
>>> "dataStorageConfiguration",
>>> > > > > > excludes =
>>> > > > > > > > >> "dataRegionConfigurations")
>>> > > > > > > > >> > final DataStorageConfiguration
>>> dataStorageConfiguration =
>>> > > new
>>> > > > > > > > >> DataStorageConfiguration();
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
>>> > > > > > > > >> > public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
>>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>> > > > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration =
>>> new
>>> > > > > > > > >> DataRegionConfiguration();
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > public DataRegionConfiguration
>>> > > > getDataRegionConfiguration()
>>> > > > > {
>>> > > > > > > > >> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
>>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > Dennis,
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it
>>> > > because
>>> > > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> didn't
>>> > > > > > > > >> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine,
>>> but
>>> > > > > > > > >> ClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > is a final class so that can't be extended from. This
>>> PR
>>> > is
>>> > > > > > starting
>>> > > > > > > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to update
>>> the
>>> > > > > > > documentation.
>>> > > > > > > > >> The
>>> > > > > > > > >> > other thing I did was add a flag for the associated
>>> cache
>>> > to
>>> > > > use
>>> > > > > > > > >> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and
>>> see
>>> > If I
>>> > > > can
>>> > > > > > > work
>>> > > > > > > > >> out
>>> > > > > > > > >> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you
>>> can
>>> > > > > provide
>>> > > > > > > your
>>> > > > > > > > >> own
>>> > > > > > > > >> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > [image: image.png]
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <
>>> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > Michael,
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks, for verifying.
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't
>>> get
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder.
>>> > Instead
>>> > > > > they
>>> > > > > > > are
>>> > > > > > > > >> just
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes.
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default
>>> > > > > configuration
>>> > > > > > > for
>>> > > > > > > > >> its
>>> > > > > > > > >> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of
>>> Hazelcast
>>> > > core:
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > >
>>> master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their
>>> > > > > Micronaut's
>>> > > > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following
>>> > > > configuration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > parameteres:
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the
>>> > > parent
>>> > > > > > > > >> ClientConfig
>>> > > > > > > > >> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes =
>>> > > > > {"properties",
>>> > > > > > > > >> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext",
>>> > "clusterName"}*
>>> > > > > > > > >> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig,
>>> > > SocketOptions
>>> > > > > > > > >> properties
>>> > > > > > > > >> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can
>>> not
>>> > be
>>> > > > > > > inherited
>>> > > > > > > > as
>>> > > > > > > > >> > above. Thus, they define those with
>>> > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>> > > > > > > manually.
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > As a result, their implementation is simple and
>>> compact,
>>> > and
>>> > > > > here
>>> > > > > > > is a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > final list of configuration properties:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > Could you check if we can follow a similar approach?
>>> Let's
>>> > > > start
>>> > > > > > > with
>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > thin client. It's much simpler.
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > yea, will need to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean
>>> because
>>> > > > there
>>> > > > > > is
>>> > > > > > > no
>>> > > > > > > > >> way
>>> > > > > > > > >> > a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't
>>> quite
>>> > > > worked
>>> > > > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> out
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > yet.
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let
>>> me
>>> > > know
>>> > > > if
>>> > > > > > you
>>> > > > > > > > >> need
>>> > > > > > > > >> > me to help to figure out how to do that with
>>> Micronaut.
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > -
>>> > > > > > > > >> > Denis
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > Dennis,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > This is what I came up with with some of the
>>> > suggestions:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > and
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > test cases:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but
>>> couldn't
>>> > get
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder.
>>> > Instead
>>> > > > > they
>>> > > > > > > are
>>> > > > > > > > >> just
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
>>> > > > > > > > >> ConfigurationProperty
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table
>>> in the
>>> > > > > > > > >> documentation is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I
>>> don't
>>> > > think
>>> > > > > this
>>> > > > > > > > will
>>> > > > > > > > >> > work
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest
>>> > > > @EachProperty
>>> > > > > > in
>>> > > > > > > a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > single
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with
>>> how
>>> > > > stuff
>>> > > > > > gets
>>> > > > > > > > >> > resolved
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > (
>>> > > > > >
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938
>>> > > > > > > ).
>>> > > > > > > > >> so
>>> > > > > > > > >> > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind
>>> of a
>>> > > > first
>>> > > > > > > > working
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a
>>> bit.
>>> > yea,
>>> > > > > will
>>> > > > > > > need
>>> > > > > > > > >> to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean
>>> because
>>> > > > there
>>> > > > > > is
>>> > > > > > > no
>>> > > > > > > > >> way
>>> > > > > > > > >> > a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't
>>> quite
>>> > > > worked
>>> > > > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> out
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > yet.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the
>>> > > confluence.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <
>>> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Michael,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration
>>> > > > > specificities.
>>> > > > > > > What
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > confused
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > me before, is that even though the beans
>>> configuration
>>> > > in
>>> > > > > > > > Micronaut
>>> > > > > > > > >> > looks
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the
>>> former
>>> > > > > > automates
>>> > > > > > > a
>>> > > > > > > > >> lot
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > with
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our
>>> > > default
>>> > > > > > Spring
>>> > > > > > > > >> Boot
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration looks
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users define
>>> any
>>> > > > possible
>>> > > > > > > > >> property
>>> > > > > > > > >> > of
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > an
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>> > > > > > > > >> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > The upside of the reflection.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I
>>> > would
>>> > > > > > suggest.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration
>>> that
>>> > > > > > *extends*
>>> > > > > > > > >> > Ignite's
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > ClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > ClientConfiguration.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Once done, it will be possible to configure
>>> most of
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > ClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess
>>> that's
>>> > how
>>> > > > you
>>> > > > > > > were
>>> > > > > > > > >> doing
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > before I joined the review)
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class
>>> are
>>> > of
>>> > > > > > custom
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > non-primitive types and should be added into
>>> the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via
>>> the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType,
>>> sslProtocol,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration,
>>> can we
>>> > > > > support
>>> > > > > > > > >> another
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration
>>> bean
>>> > > is
>>> > > > > > > created
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > programmatically in the source code and the
>>> > integration
>>> > > > uses
>>> > > > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> bean
>>> > > > > > > > >> > to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client
>>> (instead of
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that
>>> requires to
>>> > > set
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > properties
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the
>>> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> bean
>>> > > > > > > > >> > is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > >
>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
>>> > > > > > > > >> > programmatically
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >and
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite
>>> > object.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the
>>> numerous
>>> > > > > > > configuration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > .
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the
>>> > most
>>> > > > > > > frequently
>>> > > > > > > > >> used
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
>>> > > > > > > > >> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it
>>> > seems
>>> > > > > > > > reasonable
>>> > > > > > > > >> if
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's
>>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> (so
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive
>>> > > types).
>>> > > > > > Based
>>> > > > > > > > on
>>> > > > > > > > >> my
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > experience, I would add the following settings of
>>> > custom
>>> > > > > > > > >> non-primitive
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > types:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this should
>>> be
>>> > > done
>>> > > > > > > easily,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > right,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field.
>>> In the
>>> > > > > > > beginning,
>>> > > > > > > > I
>>> > > > > > > > >> > would
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > only
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > and
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >via
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > including
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions
>>> property.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is
>>> I'm
>>> > > > > assuming
>>> > > > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> we
>>> > > > > > > > >> > can
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > do
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through
>>> > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > (include)
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > or inheritence.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings
>>> > unsupported
>>> > > by
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be
>>> a way
>>> > > to
>>> > > > > > create
>>> > > > > > > > an
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use
>>> it
>>> > to
>>> > > > > > > initialize
>>> > > > > > > > >> an
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Ignite instance (instead of
>>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still
>>> missing
>>> > > > > > > something.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > -
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Denis
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
>>> > > > > > > > >> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for
>>> ehcache[1]
>>> > and
>>> > > > > > network
>>> > > > > > > > >> options
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > for
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement
>>> > > > something
>>> > > > > > > > >> similar to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > [1]
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > [2]
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Let me know what you think.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Regards,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Saikat
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind
>>> <
>>> > > > > > > > >> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through
>>> > > > > > experimentation.
>>> > > > > > > > You
>>> > > > > > > > >> can
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > ask
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty
>>> comprehensive:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html
>>> > .
>>> > > > look
>>> > > > > > for
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt
>>> > through
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > current
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > existing
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those
>>> configuration
>>> > > > items
>>> > > > > > are
>>> > > > > > > > >> setup.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > There
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core
>>> > which
>>> > > > have
>>> > > > > > > been
>>> > > > > > > > >> > pretty
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of
>>> > these
>>> > > > > > > > annotations
>>> > > > > > > > >> > work
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > in
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > practice.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <
>>> > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Michael,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible
>>> > > quantity
>>> > > > of
>>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > instances
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to
>>> > > > > auto-configure a
>>> > > > > > > > >> single
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instance
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > only.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the
>>> > > > > configuration
>>> > > > > > > > >> matters
>>> > > > > > > > >> > of
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I
>>> can
>>> > > > suggest.
>>> > > > > > > Could
>>> > > > > > > > >> you
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > recommend
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut
>>> > > > > > configuration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > specifies
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via
>>> source
>>> > > code)?
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Denis
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael
>>> Pollind <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to
>>> infer
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > communicationSpi,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > so
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > you
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >
>>> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should
>>> look
>>> > > > pretty
>>> > > > > > > much
>>> > > > > > > > >> like
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration
>>> > easier
>>> > > > with
>>> > > > > > > just
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > allowing
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > single
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with
>>> > spring-boot
>>> > > > > > > > >> configuration:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then
>>> having
>>> > > that
>>> > > > as
>>> > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > default
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > use
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > case
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition
>>> will
>>> > > work
>>> > > > > as
>>> > > > > > > > >> follows:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable true
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - ...
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable: false
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce
>>> the
>>> > > > presence
>>> > > > > > of
>>> > > > > > > > >> > something
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis
>>> Magda <
>>> > > > > > > > >> dmagda@apache.org
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Michael,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the
>>> > > primary
>>> > > > > > bean
>>> > > > > > > is
>>> > > > > > > > >> used
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > by
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > so
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use
>>> micronaut-cache
>>> > > with
>>> > > > > > > anything
>>> > > > > > > > >> but
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the
>>> other
>>> > if
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > present.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm
>>> convinced
>>> > > > that
>>> > > > > we
>>> > > > > > > > >> > shouldn't
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > bother
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > about
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite
>>> > > > > instances.
>>> > > > > > > As I
>>> > > > > > > > >> said
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > before,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case.
>>> Furthermore,
>>> > > > > > Micronout
>>> > > > > > > is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > designed
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > for
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions
>>> and
>>> > I
>>> > > > can
>>> > > > > > > hardly
>>> > > > > > > > >> > think
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > of a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > use
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function
>>> would
>>> > > need
>>> > > > > to
>>> > > > > > > boot
>>> > > > > > > > >> up
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > several
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ignite
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to
>>> auto-configure a
>>> > > > single
>>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > instance
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > per
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on
>>> > this?
>>> > > > It
>>> > > > > > will
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > significantly
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation
>>> of
>>> > > > > > integration.
>>> > > > > > > > If
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > anybody
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > needs
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can
>>> > > > instantiate
>>> > > > > > them
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > manually.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > By default the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the
>>> > > > > thin-client
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > DynamicCache
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > if
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then
>>> I
>>> > > would
>>> > > > > > simply
>>> > > > > > > > >> > disallow
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite
>>> instance
>>> > > (let
>>> > > > > it
>>> > > > > > > be a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > thick
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > thin
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client
>>> is
>>> > > > already
>>> > > > > > > > >> started,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > then
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > throw
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > an
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a
>>> thin
>>> > > > > client
>>> > > > > > > (and
>>> > > > > > > > >> vice
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > versa).
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > As
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in
>>> relation
>>> > to
>>> > > > > > > > Micronaut,
>>> > > > > > > > >> I
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > would
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > recommend
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is
>>> > deployed
>>> > > > in
>>> > > > > a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > serverless
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > function
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster
>>> > > > faster),
>>> > > > > > > while
>>> > > > > > > > >> for
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > micro-services
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the
>>> spring
>>> > > bean
>>> > > > > > > > definition
>>> > > > > > > > >> > was
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > mainly
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what
>>> fields
>>> > are
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > most
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > relevant.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some
>>> important
>>> > > point
>>> > > > > > about
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > Micronaut.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Let
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > me
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration
>>> > > igniteConfiguration
>>> > > > =
>>> > > > > > new
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the
>>> > communicationSpi
>>> > > > bean
>>> > > > > > > below
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > without
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > having
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > it
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as a field of the
>>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration?
>>> > > > Are
>>> > > > > > you
>>> > > > > > > > >> > getting a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ignite:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of
>>> the
>>> > > SPI}
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Denis
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael
>>> > > > Pollind <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I
>>> quickly
>>> > > threw
>>> > > > > > > > together
>>> > > > > > > > >> > along
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > with
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this
>>> might
>>> > > > get a
>>> > > > > > > > little
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > complicated
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but I
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >
>>> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM
>>> Michael
>>> > > > > Pollind <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the
>>> > spring
>>> > > > bean
>>> > > > > > > > >> definition
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > was
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mainly
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what
>>> fields
>>> > > are
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > most
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Will
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > have
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the
>>> > > > configuration
>>> > > > > > > might
>>> > > > > > > > >> get a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > little
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can
>>> do
>>> > is
>>> > > > use
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and
>>> values and
>>> > > you
>>> > > > > can
>>> > > > > > > > pass
>>> > > > > > > > >> > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > somewhere
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like
>>> > this
>>> > > as
>>> > > > > > > > follows:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration
>>> > > > > igniteConfiguration =
>>> > > > > > > new
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
>>> > > > > "communicationSpi")
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi
>>> > > communicationSpi
>>> > > > =
>>> > > > > > new
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM
>>> Michael
>>> > > > > Pollind
>>> > > > > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default
>>> when
>>> > the
>>> > > > > object
>>> > > > > > > is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > declared. I
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > think
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > we
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple
>>> > > > > > ConfigurationBuilders
>>> > > > > > > > If
>>> > > > > > > > >> i'm
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > not
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > mistaken
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't
>>> need
>>> > > to
>>> > > > > > > provide
>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > name
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > since
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each
>>> > configuration
>>> > > > > under
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to
>>> that
>>> > > bean
>>> > > > > and
>>> > > > > > > also
>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > same
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most
>>> part
>>> > > will
>>> > > > > just
>>> > > > > > > use
>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > primary
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > bean
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only
>>> have one
>>> > > > cache
>>> > > > > > > > >> instance
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > active
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > time.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is
>>> the
>>> > > > primary
>>> > > > > > > bean
>>> > > > > > > > is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > used
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > by
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > so
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use
>>> micronaut-cache
>>> > > > with
>>> > > > > > > > anything
>>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the
>>> other
>>> > > if
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > configuration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > present.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is
>>> micronaut-cache. We
>>> > > can
>>> > > > > > only
>>> > > > > > > > use
>>> > > > > > > > >> one
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > instance
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify
>>> how
>>> > that
>>> > > > > works
>>> > > > > > > > >> again.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > By
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > default
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace
>>> the
>>> > > > > > thin-client
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DynamicCache
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > if
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM
>>> Denis
>>> > > > Magda <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to
>>> work
>>> > > > with
>>> > > > > > > > multiple
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master
>>> branch.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a
>>> single
>>> > > > instance
>>> > > > > > of
>>> > > > > > > a
>>> > > > > > > > >> thick
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > thin
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are
>>> > > multi-threaded
>>> > > > > and
>>> > > > > > > can
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > utilize
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > all
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > CPUs
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not
>>> harmful
>>> > to
>>> > > > > have
>>> > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > ability
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > configure
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application.
>>> As far
>>> > > as
>>> > > > I
>>> > > > > > > > >> understand,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Micronaut
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > property,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for
>>> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration?
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what
>>> those
>>> > > > > defaults
>>> > > > > > > > are?
>>> > > > > > > > >> By
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > looking
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of
>>> "configuration"), I
>>> > > see
>>> > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> > Micronaut
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > could
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the
>>> > ClientConfiguration
>>> > > > and
>>> > > > > > > > >> prepared
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > these
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properties
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am
>>> > > > > configuring
>>> > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> thin
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > client
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an
>>> instance
>>> > > of
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can
>>> > > override
>>> > > > > > some
>>> > > > > > > > >> > settings
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > such
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > as
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or
>>> > > "enablePartitionAwareness".
>>> > > > > Does
>>> > > > > > > > this
>>> > > > > > > > >> > sound
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > accurate
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the
>>> > IgniteConfiguration,
>>> > > I
>>> > > > > > would
>>> > > > > > > > just
>>> > > > > > > > >> > swap
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > "path"
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config"
>>> that is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > IgniteConfiguration.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Then
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > let
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the
>>> > > IgniteConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > defaults
>>> > > > > > > > >> and
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > allow a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
>>> > > > > > > > >> discoverySPI.ipFinder
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > memory
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can
>>> find
>>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > defaults
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > here
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM
>>> Michael
>>> > > > > > Pollind <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to
>>> work
>>> > > > with
>>> > > > > > > > multiple
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master
>>> branch.
>>> > I
>>> > > > > > believe
>>> > > > > > > I
>>> > > > > > > > >> was
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > originally
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the
>>> > > default
>>> > > > > > > ignite
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > instance
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > but
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > found
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the
>>> > > > configuration.
>>> > > > > > So
>>> > > > > > > > what
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > defaults
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > are
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of
>>> those
>>> > > > factory
>>> > > > > > > items
>>> > > > > > > > >> can't
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > be
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > covered
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationProperty
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > can
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > only
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory,
>>> there are
>>> > > > ways
>>> > > > > to
>>> > > > > > > > have
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > multiple
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > factories
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that
>>> easily
>>> > > gets
>>> > > > > > > > >> overwhelming.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > In
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would
>>> > probably
>>> > > be
>>> > > > > > more
>>> > > > > > > > >> ideal
>>> > > > > > > > >> > in
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying
>>> > that
>>> > > I
>>> > > > > > > wouldn't
>>> > > > > > > > >> be
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > able
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > cover
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true
>>> thin-clients:
>>> > > > > > > default:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > address:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
>>> > > > 127.0.0.1:10801"
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "
>>> > 127.0.0.1:10800
>>> > > "
>>> > > > > > > - "
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > "
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current
>>> > snapshot
>>> > > > > > > > >> documentation:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM
>>> Denis
>>> > > > > Magda <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling
>>> out the
>>> > > > wiki
>>> > > > > > > page.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the
>>> > Auto-Configuration
>>> > > > > wiki
>>> > > > > > > > >> section
>>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > current
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the
>>> > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform
>>> the
>>> > > > > following
>>> > > > > > > > >> changes:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the
>>> > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > as
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it's
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > done
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this
>>> change is
>>> > > > that
>>> > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > developers
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > might
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the
>>> > > > integration
>>> > > > > > > scope
>>> > > > > > > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Ignite
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters -
>>> the
>>> > > "name"
>>> > > > > and
>>> > > > > > > > >> "path".
>>> > > > > > > > >> > I
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > replace
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config"
>>> one
>>> > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> instantiates
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration.
>>> > > > > > If
>>> > > > > > > we
>>> > > > > > > > >> do
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > that,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > then
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any
>>> property
>>> > > of
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's
>>> > done
>>> > > > for
>>> > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> Ignite
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Spring
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Boot
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same
>>> with
>>> > > > > > Micronaut.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous
>>> modification
>>> > is
>>> > > > > > > feasible,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > then I
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > rework
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client
>>> configuration
>>> > > > > > > similarly,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > taking
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > our
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Spring
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin
>>> client
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see,
>>> the
>>> > > > current
>>> > > > > > > > version
>>> > > > > > > > >> of
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I
>>> would
>>> > only
>>> > > > > > rename
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > "configuration"
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction"
>>> field
>>> > > since
>>> > > > > you
>>> > > > > > > can
>>> > > > > > > > >> pass
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML
>>> following
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > format
>>> > > > > > > > >> below:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses:
>>> <IP_addresses>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> partitionAwarenessEnabled:
>>> > > true
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> transactionConfiguration:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > defaultTxConcurrency:...
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM
>>> > > Michael
>>> > > > > > > > Pollind <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so
>>> > those
>>> > > > > > methods
>>> > > > > > > > get
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrapped
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > into a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept.
>>> Below
>>> > I've
>>> > > > > > listed
>>> > > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > sections
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each
>>> annotation
>>> > > > along
>>> > > > > > > with
>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > methods
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > get
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm
>>> > working
>>> > > > > from.
>>> > > > > > > > >> Hopefully
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > helps.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the
>>> CacheConfig
>>> > > > > annotation
>>> > > > > > > but
>>> > > > > > > > >> this
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > can
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > changed
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent
>>> the
>>> > > key.
>>> > > > > By
>>> > > > > > > > >> default
>>> > > > > > > > >> > it
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > uses
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > this
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > interceptor/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this
>>> document
>>> > on
>>> > > > > > sunday:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I
>>> could
>>> > > > > expand
>>> > > > > > on
>>> > > > > > > > and
>>> > > > > > > > >> > how
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > could
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > be
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a
>>> get
>>> > and
>>> > > > > > issue a
>>> > > > > > > > >> put if
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > value
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will
>>> invalidate
>>> > if
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > return
>>> > > > > > > > >> is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > null
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > else
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > it
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a
>>> > > mistake
>>> > > > > in
>>> > > > > > my
>>> > > > > > > > >> code
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > because I
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > use
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to
>>> > > investigate
>>> > > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> closer
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > and
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > write
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the
>>> > behaviour.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it
>>> will
>>> > just
>>> > > > be
>>> > > > > > > > removed
>>> > > > > > > > >> by
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > key.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23
>>> PM
>>> > > > Saikat
>>> > > > > > > > Maitra <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable
>>> Object
>>> > > you
>>> > > > > are
>>> > > > > > > > using
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > @CachePut,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and
>>> > @CacheInvalidate
>>> > > > > > > > annotations
>>> > > > > > > > >> > and I
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > was
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > trying
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these
>>> annotation
>>> > > then
>>> > > > > > what
>>> > > > > > > > >> would
>>> > > > > > > > >> > be
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > underlying
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will
>>> happen? and
>>> > > how
>>> > > > > > those
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > operations
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > are
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user
>>> call
>>> > > this
>>> > > > > > below
>>> > > > > > > > >> method
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > then
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > how
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String
>>> name) {
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
>>> > > > > > > > >> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
>>> > > > > > > > >> > 0
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > })
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at
>>> 7:21 PM
>>> > > > > Michael
>>> > > > > > > > >> Pollind
>>> > > > > > > > >> > <
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these
>>> > annotations
>>> > > > do
>>> > > > > > you
>>> > > > > > > > mean
>>> > > > > > > > >> > this
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the
>>> moment is
>>> > > > split
>>> > > > > > into
>>> > > > > > > > >> > multiple
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > modules.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The
>>> > plan
>>> > > > was
>>> > > > > to
>>> > > > > > > > also
>>> > > > > > > > >> > have
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-data
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get
>>> > > working
>>> > > > > > > > correctly
>>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > basic
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to
>>> > > verify
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > API
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > described
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would
>>> work
>>> > > > best.
>>> > > > > At
>>> > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > moment
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > missing
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the
>>> > > thin-cache
>>> > > > > and
>>> > > > > > > how
>>> > > > > > > > >> that
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > would
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > fit
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > into
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to
>>> the
>>> > > added
>>> > > > > > > > complexity
>>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > sure
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have
>>> it
>>> > as
>>> > > a
>>> > > > > > > separate
>>> > > > > > > > >> > module
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut
>>> > project
>>> > > > > where
>>> > > > > > > > this
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > module
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > also
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > has a
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The
>>> > AsyncCache
>>> > > > and
>>> > > > > > > > >> SyncCache
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > are
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > two
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines.
>>> > There
>>> > > > are
>>> > > > > > two
>>> > > > > > > > >> ways to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > define
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide
>>> beans
>>> > > for
>>> > > > > > > > AsyncCache
>>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > SyncCache
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > but
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a
>>> DynamicCacheManager
>>> > > that
>>> > > > > > will
>>> > > > > > > > use
>>> > > > > > > > >> the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > name
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > of
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the
>>> > cache
>>> > > > > used.
>>> > > > > > In
>>> > > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > documentation
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a
>>> list of
>>> > > > caches
>>> > > > > > you
>>> > > > > > > > >> want
>>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> --
>>> > > > > > > > >> -
>>> > > > > > > > >> Denis
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>.
Thanks, Michael!
Congrats :)
> 10 сент. 2020 г., в 19:17, Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>
> With some help from @Denis Magda <dm...@gridgain.com>, we were able to
> rework micronaut-ignite and a release candidate was approved. I'm pretty
> happy with this first pass and there is a lot more that can be added but
> this is a good initial first step.
>
> documentation can be bound here:
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> PR: https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 5:32 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not sure, I would probably bring that up in the PR so the micronaut devs
>> are aware of this. Not sure how the CI will work and what can be arranged
>> in this case.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> The docs look good enough for the release. Once the integration is
>>> released, I'll update and extend my Micronaut tutorial elucidating on how
>>> to use the integration in practice for various use cases.
>>>
>>> Btw, are the ignite-core and ignite-cache Maven artifacts will be released
>>> for a specific version of Ignite? Ideally, the version of Ignite needs to
>>> be set in a pom.xml and the Micronaut integration should pick them up.
>>>
>>> Also, what are we doing next - reviewing APIs of the ignite-cache module
>>> or
>>> going through a review process of the ignite-core and merging it first to
>>> the Micronaut repository?
>>>
>>> -
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also you need to sign the CLA since you add a commit to my branch.
>>>>
>>>> branch: https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework
>>>> linked PR:
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Pollind
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Could you share the full path to the branch? Don't want to pick a
>>> wrong
>>>> one
>>>>> accidentally.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Denis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:47 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> so that clears up the extra flag for micronaut-cache. just need to
>>>>>> intercept the default IgniteConfiguration bean and update the
>>>>>> configuration. if you pull my latest changes from the rework branch
>>> you
>>>>> can
>>>>>> look at the docs for that micronaut module. `./gradlew docs`.
>>>> Finalizing
>>>>>> the docs should be the last part of this. The configuration from my
>>>>>> perspective seems pretty much there. Is there anything else that is
>>>>>> missing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:31 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 👍 Nice catch!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One thing that just occurred to me for the
>>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> can actually just intercept the bean when it's created. This
>>> should
>>>>> let
>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>>> use the enable flag from ignite-core for ignite-cache without
>>> the
>>>>>>>> additional flag.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @Singleton
>>>>>>>> public class IgniteConfigurationFactoryInterceptor implements
>>>>>>>> BeanCreatedEventListener<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> {
>>>>>>>> @Override
>>>>>>>> public IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>>> onCreated(BeanCreatedEvent<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> event) {
>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration configuration = event.getBean();
>>>>>>>> configuration.setIgniteInstanceName("instance-a");
>>>>>>>> return configuration;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looks terrific! I went ahead and grouped the configuration
>>>> samples
>>>>>> by a
>>>>>>>>> client type:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As you see, the "Ignite Thin Client" section is blank for now.
>>>>> Would
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> mind filling it with configuration options following the
>>> format
>>>>> taken
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> the thick client?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ping me here once you're ready to review the API and
>>>> implementation
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> ignite-caching module.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:16 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is a sample project I threw together and I've also
>>> updated
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> wiki
>>>>>>>>>> just a bit. working on updating the documentation on the
>>>>> micronaut
>>>>>>> end.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config. splitting it
>>>> into
>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>> modules
>>>>>>>>>>> seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't really
>>>> like
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> random
>>>>>>>>>>> boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your
>>>> provider:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> kind of strange that there are not getters for the
>>>>>>>>>>> TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to
>>> verify
>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've written.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> static ip finder
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "ignite.enabled" :
>>> true,
>>>>>>>>>>> "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
>>>>>>>> "localhost:1800",
>>>>>>>>>>> "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" :
>>> "true",
>>>>>>>>>>> "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "
>>>>>>>> 127.0.0.1:47500
>>>>>>>>> ",
>>>>>>>>>>> "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "
>>>>>>>> 127.0.0.1:47501
>>>>>>>>> ",
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> kubernetties ip finder
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "ignite.enabled" :
>>> true,
>>>>>>>>>>> "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
>>>>>>>>> "localhost:1800",
>>>>>>>>>>> "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" :
>>>> "true",
>>>>>>>>>>> "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace":
>>>>>> "HelloWorld"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <
>>>> dmagda@apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the
>>> ignite-cache
>>>>>> module
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>> (one for a thick-client based connection and the other
>>> for
>>>>> thin
>>>>>>>> client
>>>>>>>>>>>> connections), and would try to avoid this route if
>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut developers
>>> can
>>>>>> create
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> generic
>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite
>>> connectivity
>>>>>>> methods,
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache
>>> implementation
>>>> can
>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one,
>>>> depends
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>> of a client you started with our auto-configuration
>>>> feature).
>>>>>>> Let’s
>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>> all the existing issues here and jump on another call to
>>>>>> finalize
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> solution if needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <
>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went ahead
>>> and
>>>>>>> pushed
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those
>>>> changes
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> minor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>> class
>>>> and
>>>>>> add
>>>>>>>>>> Static
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Kubernetes IP finders to the
>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>>> class.
>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think
>>> we'll
>>>>>> figure
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> modify the test on the call today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, let's decide if we want to configure IgniteCaches
>>>> via
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Micronaut
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration. If an application needs to create any
>>>> caches,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that
>>>> these
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided through a factory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Bean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Named("default")
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Primary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> public IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>> configuration,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration>
>>> cacheConfigurations,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration>
>>>>> executorConfigurations,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Optional<CollisionSpi>
>>>>>>>>>>>> collisionSpi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Collection<FailoverSpi>
>>>>>>>>>>>> failoverSpis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> @ConsistencyId
>>>>>>>>>>>> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> @IgniteLifecycle
>>>>>>>>>>>> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
>>>>>>>>>>>> CacheConfiguration[0]))
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new
>>>>>>>>> PluginProvider[0]))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
>>>>>>>>>>>> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>> .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new
>>>>>>> FailoverSpi[0]))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
>>>>>>>>>>>> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new
>>>>>>>>>> LifecycleBean[0]))
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
>>>>>>>>>>>>> return configuration;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here is an updated example what the yaml looks like
>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled: true
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comunication-spi:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> local-port: 5555
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache-configurations:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - accounts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> table-name: ACCOUNTS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> key-type: String
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - books:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> table-name: BOOKS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> key-type: String
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its
>>>>> static
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not
>>> work
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> case. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the
>>>>> environment.
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it
>>>> would
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>>>>> DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum
>>> working
>>>>>> setup
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> add in the missing configurations as we go?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
>>> "dataStorageConfiguration",
>>>>>>>> excludes =
>>>>>>>>>>>> "dataRegionConfigurations")
>>>>>>>>>>>>> final DataStorageConfiguration
>>> dataStorageConfiguration =
>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStorageConfiguration();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
>>>>>>>>>>>>> public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration =
>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>> DataRegionConfiguration();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> public DataRegionConfiguration
>>>>>> getDataRegionConfiguration()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> return dataRegionConfiguration;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dennis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it
>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> ClientConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a final class so that can't be extended from. This
>>> PR
>>>> is
>>>>>>>> starting
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the
>>>>>>>>> documentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other thing I did was add a flag for the associated
>>> cache
>>>> to
>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see
>>>> If I
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you
>>> can
>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: image.png]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, for verifying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't
>>> get
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder.
>>>> Instead
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> placed into wrapper classes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default
>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thin client by extending ClientConfig class of
>>> Hazelcast
>>>>> core:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their
>>>>>>> Micronaut's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following
>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameteres:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the
>>>>> parent
>>>>>>>>>>>> ClientConfig
>>>>>>>>>>>>> class. They do this by adding this - *includes =
>>>>>>> {"properties",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "instanceName", "labels", "userContext",
>>>> "clusterName"}*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig,
>>>>> SocketOptions
>>>>>>>>>>>> properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can
>>> not
>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> inherited
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> above. Thus, they define those with
>>>> @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>>>>>>> manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a result, their implementation is simple and
>>> compact,
>>>> and
>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> final list of configuration properties:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you check if we can follow a similar approach?
>>> Let's
>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thin client. It's much simpler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yea, will need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a way for a user to provide their own bean
>>> because
>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full configuration could be covered but I haven't
>>> quite
>>>>>> worked
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let
>>> me
>>>>> know
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dennis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I came up with with some of the
>>>> suggestions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test cases:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't
>>>> get
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder.
>>>> Instead
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
>>>>>>>>>>>> ConfigurationProperty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generated and without a way to exclude things I don't
>>>>> think
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest
>>>>>> @EachProperty
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with
>>> how
>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>> gets
>>>>>>>>>>>>> resolved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938
>>>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind
>>> of a
>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit.
>>>> yea,
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup a way for a user to provide their own bean
>>> because
>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full configuration could be covered but I haven't
>>> quite
>>>>>> worked
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this is ok then I can do another pass on the
>>>>> confluence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration
>>>>>>> specificities.
>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me before, is that even though the beans
>>> configuration
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> Micronaut
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the
>>> former
>>>>>>>> automates
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our
>>>>> default
>>>>>>>> Spring
>>>>>>>>>>>> Boot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration looks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteClientConfigurer.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like. And that's enough to let the users define any
>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The upside of the reflection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I
>>>> would
>>>>>>>> suggest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Ignite Thin Client*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration
>>> that
>>>>>>>> *extends*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ClientConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ClientConfiguration.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once done, it will be possible to configure
>>> most of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ClientConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settings which are primitive types. (guess
>>> that's
>>>> how
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before I joined the review)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class
>>> are
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> custom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-primitive types and should be added into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> annotation. Those fields are *sslType,
>>> sslProtocol,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can
>>> we
>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration
>>> bean
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> created
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically in the source code and the
>>>> integration
>>>>>> uses
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> bean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initialize an instance of the thin client (instead
>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires
>>> to
>>>>> set
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the
>>>>>>>> ClientConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>> bean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created programmatically in Spring Boot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmatically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite
>>>> object.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous
>>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, as you suggested before, we need to select the
>>>> most
>>>>>>>>> frequently
>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration parameters and add them to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it
>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>> reasonable
>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's
>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>> (so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we don't need to list parameters of primitive
>>>>> types).
>>>>>>>> Based
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience, I would add the following settings of
>>>> custom
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-primitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - TcpDiscoverySpi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TcpDiscoverySpi.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all its fields of primitive types (this should
>>> be
>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>> easily,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> beginning,
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KubernetesIpFinder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - DataStorageConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DataStorageConfiguration.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions
>>> property.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - TcpCommunicationSpi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its fields of primitive types. Again, here is
>>> I'm
>>>>>>> assuming
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through
>>>>>>>>>> @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (include)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or inheritence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the user wants to configure any settings
>>>> unsupported
>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a
>>> way
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use
>>> it
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> initialize
>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite instance (instead of
>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still
>>> missing
>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
>>>>>>>>>>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Michael, Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1]
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> network
>>>>>>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement
>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>> similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configure CommunicationSpi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> snapshot/guide/#ehcache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know what you think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saikat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>>>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A lot of this was just figured out through
>>>>>>>> experimentation.
>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions in the micronaut gitter:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . Micronaut documentation is pretty
>>> comprehensive:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html
>>>> .
>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EachProperty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt
>>>> through
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> micronaut modules and find how those
>>> configuration
>>>>>> items
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> setup.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core
>>>> which
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helpful in the past in working out how some of
>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>> annotations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alright, then the question on the possible
>>>>> quantity
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settled - the integration will allow to
>>>>>>> auto-configure a
>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give me a couple of days to look into the
>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>> matters
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can
>>>>>> suggest.
>>>>>>>>> Could
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut
>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (through YAML and programmatically via source
>>>>> code)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael
>>> Pollind <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think micronaut will be able to
>>> infer
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communicationSpi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to define it separately as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With this setup the configuration should
>>> look
>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spring-boot sample you showed me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree it should make the configuration
>>>> easier
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance and it matches up well with
>>>> spring-boot
>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context/annotation/Requires.html.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since its mostly a niche usecase then
>>> having
>>>>> that
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems pretty ideal to me. the definition
>>> will
>>>>> work
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite-instance-name: name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication-spi:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local-port: 5555
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data-storage-configuration:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache-configurations:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - name: accounts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queryEntities:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - tableName: NAME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite-thin:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enable: false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance-name: name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the
>>>>>> presence
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should suffice for this usecase:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context/annotation/Requires.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis
>>> Magda <
>>>>>>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The current way I have it setup is the
>>>>> primary
>>>>>>>> bean
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you won't be able to use
>>> micronaut-cache
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean. I guess one can override the
>>> other
>>>> if
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more I'm thinking the more I'm
>>> convinced
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bother
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the auto-configuration of several Ignite
>>>>>>> instances.
>>>>>>>>> As I
>>>>>>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's an occasional use case.
>>> Furthermore,
>>>>>>>> Micronout
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> micro-services and serverless functions
>>> and
>>>> I
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> hardly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case when a micro-service or function
>>> would
>>>>> need
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> boot
>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clients. What if we let to
>>> auto-configure a
>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application process? What's your view on
>>>> this?
>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significantly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplify the design and implementation of
>>>>>>>> integration.
>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anybody
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several Ignite instances, then he can
>>>>>> instantiate
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By default the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thick client instance will replace the
>>>>>>> thin-client
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DynamicCache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be ok?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you agree on my proposal above, then I
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disallow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> auto-starting more than one Ignite
>>> instance
>>>>> (let
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client). For example, if a thick client
>>> is
>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>> started,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exception on an attempt to initialize a
>>> thin
>>>>>>> client
>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>> vice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versa).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for thick vs. thin client usage in
>>> relation
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> Micronaut,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the thin client if Micronaut is
>>>> deployed
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> serverless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (the thin client connects to the cluster
>>>>>> faster),
>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> micro-services
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can use both types of clients.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main reason why I was using the
>>> spring
>>>>> bean
>>>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mainly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenience and I'm not sure what
>>> fields
>>>> are
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, seems that I'm missing some important
>>>>> point
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Micronaut.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> double-check the following with you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assume these are the only fields of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private final String name;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private IgniteConfiguration
>>>>> igniteConfiguration
>>>>>> =
>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will I be able to set up the
>>>> communicationSpi
>>>>>> bean
>>>>>>>>> below
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a field of the
>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration?
>>>>>> Are
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NullPointerException?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name: some_name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> igniteConfiguration:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communicationSpi:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {redefining some fields of
>>> the
>>>>> SPI}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael
>>>>>> Pollind <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the initial setup that I
>>> quickly
>>>>> threw
>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>>>>> along
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example test cases. I feel like this
>>> might
>>>>>> get a
>>>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it's doable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along with some relevant test:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM
>>> Michael
>>>>>>> Pollind <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main reason why I was using the
>>>> spring
>>>>>> bean
>>>>>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mainly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convenience and I'm not sure what
>>> fields
>>>>> are
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be kind of specific since the
>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>> get a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated. The other thing you can
>>> do
>>>> is
>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convert/format/MapFormat.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which will just map fields and values
>>> and
>>>>> you
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> pass
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else to be manage it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you will need to do something like
>>>> this
>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private final String name;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>> igniteConfiguration =
>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
>>>>>>> "communicationSpi")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private TcpCommunicationSpi
>>>>> communicationSpi
>>>>>> =
>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TcpCommunicationSpi();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: image.png]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM
>>> Michael
>>>>>>> Pollind
>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its whatever is setup by default when
>>>> the
>>>>>>> object
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declared. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have to define multiple
>>>>>>>> ConfigurationBuilders
>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>> i'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistaken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't
>>> need
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided by the key for each
>>>> configuration
>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EachProperty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the qualified name that refers to
>>> that
>>>>> bean
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualifier for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Ignite instance. For the most
>>> part
>>>>> will
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most part. I think you can only have
>>> one
>>>>>> cache
>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The current way I have it setup is
>>> the
>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>>>> bean
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you won't be able to use
>>> micronaut-cache
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bean. I guess one can override the
>>> other
>>>>> if
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One problem I see is
>>> micronaut-cache. We
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how
>>>> that
>>>>>>> works
>>>>>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thick client instance will replace
>>> the
>>>>>>>> thin-client
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DynamicCache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be ok?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thick-clients:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default: <--- primary bean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second-bean:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thin-clients:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default: <--- primary bean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second-bean:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context/annotation/Requires.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM
>>> Denis
>>>>>> Magda <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oh, so we probably don't need to
>>> work
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have in the current master
>>> branch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In most cases, people start a single
>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> thick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application. The clients are
>>>>> multi-threaded
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utilize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPUs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively. However, it's not
>>> harmful
>>>> to
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several clients per application. As
>>> far
>>>>> as
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> understand,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Micronaut
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinguishes clients per the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what defaults are set for
>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what
>>> those
>>>>>>> defaults
>>>>>>>>>> are?
>>>>>>>>>>>> By
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that defines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (under the name of
>>> "configuration"), I
>>>>> see
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Micronaut
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introspect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the fields of the
>>>> ClientConfiguration
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> prepared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me, it means that whenever I am
>>>>>>> configuring
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> thin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YAML
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file, Micronaut will create an
>>> instance
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ClientConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sets the defaults), and then I can
>>>>> override
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> settings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "addresses" or
>>>>> "enablePartitionAwareness".
>>>>>>> Does
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accurate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerning Micronaut?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jumping back to the
>>>> IgniteConfiguration,
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> swap
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "path"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the String with the "config"
>>> that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite take care of the
>>>>> IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>> defaults
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to override some defaults (such as
>>>>>>>>>>>> discoverySPI.ipFinder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settings). Just in case, you can
>>> find
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defaults
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM
>>> Michael
>>>>>>>> Pollind <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oh, so we probably don't need to
>>> work
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have in the current master
>>> branch.
>>>> I
>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> originally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set-up the configuration with the
>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>> ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't cover enough of the
>>>>>> configuration.
>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defaults
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration? some of those
>>>>>> factory
>>>>>>>>> items
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> micronaut sets up configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @ConfigurationProperty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined on a known factory, there
>>> are
>>>>>> ways
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factories
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> label them optional but that
>>> easily
>>>>> gets
>>>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> providing your own bean would
>>>> probably
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>> ideal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situation when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think about it. I was worrying
>>>> that
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the configuration with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite: enabled: true
>>> thin-clients:
>>>>>>>>> default:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
>>>>>> 127.0.0.1:10801"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thin-client-2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address: - "
>>>> 127.0.0.1:10800
>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>> - "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 127.0.0.1:10801
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can see it in the current
>>>> snapshot
>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM
>>> Denis
>>>>>>> Magda <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael, thanks for filling out
>>> the
>>>>>> wiki
>>>>>>>>> page.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm looking at the
>>>> Auto-Configuration
>>>>>>> wiki
>>>>>>>>>>>> section
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteClientConfiguration.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and wonder if we can perform the
>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Rename the
>>>>>>> IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or, to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid ambiguity, even to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mongo driver
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The rationale for this
>>> change is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start an embedded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite server node
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I would not limit the
>>>>>> integration
>>>>>>>>> scope
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clients
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Presently,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supports two parameters - the
>>>>> "name"
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> "path".
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "path"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter with the "config"
>>> one
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> instantiates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration.
>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be able to set any
>>> property
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main YAML file. See how it's
>>>> done
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Auto-Configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guess, we can do the same
>>> with
>>>>>>>> Micronaut.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. If the previous
>>> modification
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> feasible,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rework
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite thin client
>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>> similarly,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integration for the thin
>>> client
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a reference. As I see, the
>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adopts this approach. I would
>>>> only
>>>>>>>> rename
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "configuration"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "config",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remove the "transaction"
>>> field
>>>>> since
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> pass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settings via the YAML
>>> following
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> format
>>>>>>>>>>>> below:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite-thin-client:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addresses:
>>> <IP_addresses>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> partitionAwarenessEnabled:
>>>>> true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> transactionConfiguration:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> defaultTxConcurrency:...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defaultTxTimeout
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>> Pollind <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oh, that makes more sense. so
>>>> those
>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrapped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> micronaut-aop intercept. Below
>>>> I've
>>>>>>>> listed
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sections
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that would handle each
>>> annotation
>>>>>> along
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the ignite branch I'm
>>>> working
>>>>>>> from.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified from the CacheConfig
>>>>>>> annotation
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a better way to represent
>>> the
>>>>> key.
>>>>>>> By
>>>>>>>>>>>> default
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interceptor/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also finished up this
>>> document
>>>> on
>>>>>>>> sunday:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestions with what I
>>> could
>>>>>>> expand
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adjusted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cacheable:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For Cacheable it will run a
>>> get
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> issue a
>>>>>>>>>>>> put if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the cache.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -> micronaut-cache:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -> ignite-cache:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CachePut:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For cache put it will
>>> invalidate
>>>> if
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> null
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put. I think there might be a
>>>>> mistake
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> putIfAbsent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for both cases. I need to
>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> closer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test cases to verify the
>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> micronaut-cache:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -> ignite-cache:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalidate:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CacheInvalidate:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for cache invalidation it will
>>>> just
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> removed
>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> micronaut-cache:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -> ignite-cache:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalidate:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23
>>> PM
>>>>>> Saikat
>>>>>>>>>> Maitra <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the Example Cacheable
>>> Object
>>>>> you
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @CachePut,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Cacheable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> annotations and
>>>> @CacheInvalidate
>>>>>>>>>> annotations
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when user use these
>>> annotation
>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underlying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation that will happen?
>>> and
>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performed?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An example like when user
>>> call
>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> below
>>>>>>>>>>>> method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getValue is cached?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Cacheable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int getValue(String
>>> name) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> })
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saikat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at
>>> 7:21 PM
>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pollind
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you mean these
>>>> annotations
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in ignite?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The project at the moment
>>> is
>>>>>> split
>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite-core,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite-cache, etc ... The
>>>> plan
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite-data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a bit of work to get
>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done. The plan is also to
>>>>> verify
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> API
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wiki and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure this is what would
>>> work
>>>>>> best.
>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation for the
>>>>> thin-cache
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've removed it due to the
>>>>> added
>>>>>>>>>> complexity
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arranged that would work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For Ignite-cache, I have
>>> it
>>>> as
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> module
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> optionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included in a micronaut
>>>> project
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> module
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> micronaut-cache. The
>>>> AsyncCache
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> SyncCache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> micronaut-cache defines.
>>>> There
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>> ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can either provide
>>> beans
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> AsyncCache
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SyncCache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define a
>>> DynamicCacheManager
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refer to the name of the
>>>> cache
>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Teracotta you give a list
>>> of
>>>>>> caches
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
With some help from @Denis Magda <dm...@gridgain.com>, we were able to
rework micronaut-ignite and a release candidate was approved. I'm pretty
happy with this first pass and there is a lot more that can be added but
this is a good initial first step.
documentation can be bound here:
https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
PR: https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 5:32 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure, I would probably bring that up in the PR so the micronaut devs
> are aware of this. Not sure how the CI will work and what can be arranged
> in this case.
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> The docs look good enough for the release. Once the integration is
>> released, I'll update and extend my Micronaut tutorial elucidating on how
>> to use the integration in practice for various use cases.
>>
>> Btw, are the ignite-core and ignite-cache Maven artifacts will be released
>> for a specific version of Ignite? Ideally, the version of Ignite needs to
>> be set in a pom.xml and the Micronaut integration should pick them up.
>>
>> Also, what are we doing next - reviewing APIs of the ignite-cache module
>> or
>> going through a review process of the ignite-core and merging it first to
>> the Micronaut repository?
>>
>> -
>> Denis
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Also you need to sign the CLA since you add a commit to my branch.
>> >
>> > branch: https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework
>> > linked PR:
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>> >
>> > --
>> > Michael Pollind
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Could you share the full path to the branch? Don't want to pick a
>> wrong
>> > one
>> > > accidentally.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > -
>> > > Denis
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:47 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > so that clears up the extra flag for micronaut-cache. just need to
>> > > > intercept the default IgniteConfiguration bean and update the
>> > > > configuration. if you pull my latest changes from the rework branch
>> you
>> > > can
>> > > > look at the docs for that micronaut module. `./gradlew docs`.
>> > Finalizing
>> > > > the docs should be the last part of this. The configuration from my
>> > > > perspective seems pretty much there. Is there anything else that is
>> > > > missing?
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:31 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > 👍 Nice catch!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -
>> > > > > Denis
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Michael Pollind <
>> mpollind@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > One thing that just occurred to me for the
>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > can actually just intercept the bean when it's created. This
>> should
>> > > let
>> > > > > us
>> > > > > > use the enable flag from ignite-core for ignite-cache without
>> the
>> > > > > > additional flag.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > @Singleton
>> > > > > > public class IgniteConfigurationFactoryInterceptor implements
>> > > > > > BeanCreatedEventListener<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> {
>> > > > > > @Override
>> > > > > > public IgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > onCreated(BeanCreatedEvent<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> event) {
>> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration configuration = event.getBean();
>> > > > > > configuration.setIgniteInstanceName("instance-a");
>> > > > > > return configuration;
>> > > > > > }
>> > > > > > }
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org
>> >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Michael,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Looks terrific! I went ahead and grouped the configuration
>> > samples
>> > > > by a
>> > > > > > > client type:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > As you see, the "Ignite Thin Client" section is blank for now.
>> > > Would
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > > mind filling it with configuration options following the
>> format
>> > > taken
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > the thick client?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Ping me here once you're ready to review the API and
>> > implementation
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > ignite-caching module.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:16 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Here is a sample project I threw together and I've also
>> updated
>> > > the
>> > > > > > wiki
>> > > > > > > > just a bit. working on updating the documentation on the
>> > > micronaut
>> > > > > end.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config. splitting it
>> > into
>> > > > two
>> > > > > > > > modules
>> > > > > > > > > seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't really
>> > like
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > random
>> > > > > > > > > boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your
>> > provider:
>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > kind of strange that there are not getters for the
>> > > > > > > > > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to
>> verify
>> > > that
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've written.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > static ip finder
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.enabled" :
>> true,
>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
>> > > > > > "localhost:1800",
>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" :
>> "true",
>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "
>> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:47500
>> > > > > > > ",
>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "
>> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:47501
>> > > > > > > ",
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > kubernetties ip finder
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.enabled" :
>> true,
>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
>> > > > > > > "localhost:1800",
>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" :
>> > "true",
>> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace":
>> > > > "HelloWorld"
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <
>> > dmagda@apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> Michael,
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the
>> ignite-cache
>> > > > module
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > > two
>> > > > > > > > >> (one for a thick-client based connection and the other
>> for
>> > > thin
>> > > > > > client
>> > > > > > > > >> connections), and would try to avoid this route if
>> possible.
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut developers
>> can
>> > > > create
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > >> generic
>> > > > > > > > >> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite
>> connectivity
>> > > > > methods,
>> > > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > > > >> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache
>> implementation
>> > can
>> > > > > > decide
>> > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > >> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one,
>> > depends
>> > > > on
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > > > >> of a client you started with our auto-configuration
>> > feature).
>> > > > > Let’s
>> > > > > > > > >> discuss
>> > > > > > > > >> all the existing issues here and jump on another call to
>> > > > finalize
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > >> solution if needed.
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> Denis
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <
>> dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> > Michael,
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went ahead
>> and
>> > > > > pushed
>> > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > >> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those
>> > changes
>> > > > do
>> > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > >> minor
>> > > > > > > > >> > tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration
>> class
>> > and
>> > > > add
>> > > > > > > > Static
>> > > > > > > > >> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the
>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > class.
>> > > > > > > > The
>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think
>> we'll
>> > > > figure
>> > > > > > how
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > >> > modify the test on the call today.
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure IgniteCaches
>> > via
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> Micronaut
>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration. If an application needs to create any
>> > caches,
>> > > > it
>> > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > do
>> > > > > > > > >> this
>> > > > > > > > >> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > -
>> > > > > > > > >> > Denis
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that
>> > these
>> > > > can
>> > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > >> > provided through a factory.
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > @Bean
>> > > > > > > > >> > @Named("default")
>> > > > > > > > >> > @Primary
>> > > > > > > > >> > public IgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>> > configuration,
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration>
>> cacheConfigurations,
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration>
>> > > executorConfigurations,
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > Optional<CollisionSpi>
>> > > > > > > > >> collisionSpi,
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > Collection<FailoverSpi>
>> > > > > > > > >> failoverSpis,
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > @ConsistencyId
>> > > > > > > > >> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > @IgniteLifecycle
>> > > > > > > > >> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
>> > > > > > > > >> CacheConfiguration[0]))
>> > > > > > > > >> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new
>> > > > > > > PluginProvider[0]))
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
>> > > > > > > > >> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >
>> .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
>> > > > > > > > >> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new
>> > > > > FailoverSpi[0]))
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
>> > > > > > > > >> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
>> > > > > > > > >> > .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
>> > > > > > > > >> > .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new
>> > > > > > > > LifecycleBean[0]))
>> > > > > > > > >> > .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
>> > > > > > > > >> > return configuration;
>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks like
>> now.
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > ignite:
>> > > > > > > > >> > enabled: true
>> > > > > > > > >> > comunication-spi:
>> > > > > > > > >> > local-port: 5555
>> > > > > > > > >> > cache-configurations:
>> > > > > > > > >> > - accounts:
>> > > > > > > > >> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
>> > > > > > > > >> > key-type: String
>> > > > > > > > >> > - books:
>> > > > > > > > >> > table-name: BOOKS
>> > > > > > > > >> > key-type: String
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its
>> > > static
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > nested
>> > > > > > > > >> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not
>> work
>> > > in
>> > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > >> case. So
>> > > > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the
>> > > environment.
>> > > > > > This
>> > > > > > > > is a
>> > > > > > > > >> > working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it
>> > would
>> > > > have
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > >> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>> > > > > > > DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum
>> working
>> > > > setup
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > >> then
>> > > > > > > > >> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
>> "dataStorageConfiguration",
>> > > > > > excludes =
>> > > > > > > > >> "dataRegionConfigurations")
>> > > > > > > > >> > final DataStorageConfiguration
>> dataStorageConfiguration =
>> > > new
>> > > > > > > > >> DataStorageConfiguration();
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
>> > > > > > > > >> > public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>> > > > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration =
>> new
>> > > > > > > > >> DataRegionConfiguration();
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > public DataRegionConfiguration
>> > > > getDataRegionConfiguration()
>> > > > > {
>> > > > > > > > >> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>> > > > > > > > >> > }
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > Dennis,
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it
>> > > because
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> didn't
>> > > > > > > > >> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
>> > > > > > > > >> ClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > is a final class so that can't be extended from. This
>> PR
>> > is
>> > > > > > starting
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > >> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the
>> > > > > > > documentation.
>> > > > > > > > >> The
>> > > > > > > > >> > other thing I did was add a flag for the associated
>> cache
>> > to
>> > > > use
>> > > > > > > > >> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see
>> > If I
>> > > > can
>> > > > > > > work
>> > > > > > > > >> out
>> > > > > > > > >> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you
>> can
>> > > > > provide
>> > > > > > > your
>> > > > > > > > >> own
>> > > > > > > > >> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > [image: image.png]
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <
>> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > Michael,
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks, for verifying.
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't
>> get
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder.
>> > Instead
>> > > > > they
>> > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > >> just
>> > > > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes.
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default
>> > > > > configuration
>> > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > >> its
>> > > > > > > > >> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of
>> Hazelcast
>> > > core:
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
>> > > > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their
>> > > > > Micronaut's
>> > > > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following
>> > > > configuration
>> > > > > > > > >> > parameteres:
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the
>> > > parent
>> > > > > > > > >> ClientConfig
>> > > > > > > > >> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes =
>> > > > > {"properties",
>> > > > > > > > >> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext",
>> > "clusterName"}*
>> > > > > > > > >> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig,
>> > > SocketOptions
>> > > > > > > > >> properties
>> > > > > > > > >> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can
>> not
>> > be
>> > > > > > > inherited
>> > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > >> > above. Thus, they define those with
>> > @ConfigurationBuilder
>> > > > > > > manually.
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > As a result, their implementation is simple and
>> compact,
>> > and
>> > > > > here
>> > > > > > > is a
>> > > > > > > > >> > final list of configuration properties:
>> > > > > > > > >> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > Could you check if we can follow a similar approach?
>> Let's
>> > > > start
>> > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > > > >> > thin client. It's much simpler.
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > yea, will need to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean
>> because
>> > > > there
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > no
>> > > > > > > > >> way
>> > > > > > > > >> > a
>> > > > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't
>> quite
>> > > > worked
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> out
>> > > > > > > > >> > > yet.
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let
>> me
>> > > know
>> > > > if
>> > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > >> need
>> > > > > > > > >> > me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > -
>> > > > > > > > >> > Denis
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > Dennis,
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > This is what I came up with with some of the
>> > suggestions:
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>> > > > > > > > >> > java
>> > > > > > > > >> > > and
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > test cases:
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't
>> > get
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder.
>> > Instead
>> > > > > they
>> > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > >> just
>> > > > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
>> > > > > > > > >> ConfigurationProperty
>> > > > > > > > >> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in
>> the
>> > > > > > > > >> documentation is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't
>> > > think
>> > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > >> > work
>> > > > > > > > >> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest
>> > > > @EachProperty
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > >> > single
>> > > > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with
>> how
>> > > > stuff
>> > > > > > gets
>> > > > > > > > >> > resolved
>> > > > > > > > >> > > (
>> > > > > >
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938
>> > > > > > > ).
>> > > > > > > > >> so
>> > > > > > > > >> > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind
>> of a
>> > > > first
>> > > > > > > > working
>> > > > > > > > >> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit.
>> > yea,
>> > > > > will
>> > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean
>> because
>> > > > there
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > no
>> > > > > > > > >> way
>> > > > > > > > >> > a
>> > > > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't
>> quite
>> > > > worked
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> out
>> > > > > > > > >> > > yet.
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the
>> > > confluence.
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <
>> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Michael,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration
>> > > > > specificities.
>> > > > > > > What
>> > > > > > > > >> > > confused
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > me before, is that even though the beans
>> configuration
>> > > in
>> > > > > > > > Micronaut
>> > > > > > > > >> > looks
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the
>> former
>> > > > > > automates
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > >> lot
>> > > > > > > > >> > > with
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our
>> > > default
>> > > > > > Spring
>> > > > > > > > >> Boot
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration looks
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
>> > > > > > > > >> > modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any
>> > > > possible
>> > > > > > > > >> property
>> > > > > > > > >> > of
>> > > > > > > > >> > > an
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>> > > > > > > > >> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > The upside of the reflection.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I
>> > would
>> > > > > > suggest.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration
>> that
>> > > > > > *extends*
>> > > > > > > > >> > Ignite's
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > ClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>> > > > > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > > >> > ClientConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Once done, it will be possible to configure
>> most of
>> > > > > > > > >> > > ClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess
>> that's
>> > how
>> > > > you
>> > > > > > > were
>> > > > > > > > >> doing
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > before I joined the review)
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class
>> are
>> > of
>> > > > > > custom
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via
>> the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType,
>> sslProtocol,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can
>> we
>> > > > > support
>> > > > > > > > >> another
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration
>> bean
>> > > is
>> > > > > > > created
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > programmatically in the source code and the
>> > integration
>> > > > uses
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> bean
>> > > > > > > > >> > to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead
>> of
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires
>> to
>> > > set
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > properties
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the
>> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> bean
>> > > > > > > > >> > is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
>> > > > > > > > >> > programmatically
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >and
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite
>> > object.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous
>> > > > > > > configuration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>> > > > > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > .
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the
>> > most
>> > > > > > > frequently
>> > > > > > > > >> used
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
>> > > > > > > > >> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it
>> > seems
>> > > > > > > > reasonable
>> > > > > > > > >> if
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's
>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> (so
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive
>> > > types).
>> > > > > > Based
>> > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > >> my
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > experience, I would add the following settings of
>> > custom
>> > > > > > > > >> non-primitive
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > types:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
>> > > > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this should
>> be
>> > > done
>> > > > > > > easily,
>> > > > > > > > >> > right,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In
>> the
>> > > > > > > beginning,
>> > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > >> > would
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > only
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>> > > > > > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
>> > > > > > > > >> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
>> > > > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >via
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > >
>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > > >> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > including
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions
>> property.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
>> > > > > > > > >> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > with
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is
>> I'm
>> > > > > assuming
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> we
>> > > > > > > > >> > can
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > do
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through
>> > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > (include)
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > or inheritence.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings
>> > unsupported
>> > > by
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a
>> way
>> > > to
>> > > > > > create
>> > > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use
>> it
>> > to
>> > > > > > > initialize
>> > > > > > > > >> an
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Ignite instance (instead of
>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still
>> missing
>> > > > > > > something.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > -
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
>> > > > > > > > >> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1]
>> > and
>> > > > > > network
>> > > > > > > > >> options
>> > > > > > > > >> > > for
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement
>> > > > something
>> > > > > > > > >> similar to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>> > > > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > [2]
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>> > > > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Let me know what you think.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Saikat
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > > > > >> mpollind@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through
>> > > > > > experimentation.
>> > > > > > > > You
>> > > > > > > > >> can
>> > > > > > > > >> > > ask
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty
>> comprehensive:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html
>> > .
>> > > > look
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt
>> > through
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > current
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > existing
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those
>> configuration
>> > > > items
>> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > >> setup.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > There
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core
>> > which
>> > > > have
>> > > > > > > been
>> > > > > > > > >> > pretty
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of
>> > these
>> > > > > > > > annotations
>> > > > > > > > >> > work
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > in
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > practice.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <
>> > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Michael,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible
>> > > quantity
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > instances
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to
>> > > > > auto-configure a
>> > > > > > > > >> single
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instance
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > only.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the
>> > > > > configuration
>> > > > > > > > >> matters
>> > > > > > > > >> > of
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can
>> > > > suggest.
>> > > > > > > Could
>> > > > > > > > >> you
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > recommend
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut
>> > > > > > configuration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > specifies
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source
>> > > code)?
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael
>> Pollind <
>> > > > > > > > >> > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to
>> infer
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > communicationSpi,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > so
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should
>> look
>> > > > pretty
>> > > > > > > much
>> > > > > > > > >> like
>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration
>> > easier
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > > just
>> > > > > > > > >> > > allowing
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > a
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > single
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with
>> > spring-boot
>> > > > > > > > >> configuration:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then
>> having
>> > > that
>> > > > as
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > default
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > use
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > case
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition
>> will
>> > > work
>> > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > >> follows:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable true
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - ...
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable: false
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the
>> > > > presence
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > >> > something
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis
>> Magda <
>> > > > > > > > >> dmagda@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Michael,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the
>> > > primary
>> > > > > > bean
>> > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > >> used
>> > > > > > > > >> > > by
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use
>> micronaut-cache
>> > > with
>> > > > > > > anything
>> > > > > > > > >> but
>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the
>> other
>> > if
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > present.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm
>> convinced
>> > > > that
>> > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > >> > shouldn't
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > bother
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > about
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite
>> > > > > instances.
>> > > > > > > As I
>> > > > > > > > >> said
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > before,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case.
>> Furthermore,
>> > > > > > Micronout
>> > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > designed
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions
>> and
>> > I
>> > > > can
>> > > > > > > hardly
>> > > > > > > > >> > think
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > of a
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function
>> would
>> > > need
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > boot
>> > > > > > > > >> up
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > several
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to
>> auto-configure a
>> > > > single
>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > instance
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > per
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on
>> > this?
>> > > > It
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > significantly
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of
>> > > > > > integration.
>> > > > > > > > If
>> > > > > > > > >> > > anybody
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > needs
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can
>> > > > instantiate
>> > > > > > them
>> > > > > > > > >> > > manually.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > By default the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the
>> > > > > thin-client
>> > > > > > > > >> > > DynamicCache
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I
>> > > would
>> > > > > > simply
>> > > > > > > > >> > disallow
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite
>> instance
>> > > (let
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > > be a
>> > > > > > > > >> > thick
>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > thin
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client
>> is
>> > > > already
>> > > > > > > > >> started,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > then
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > throw
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a
>> thin
>> > > > > client
>> > > > > > > (and
>> > > > > > > > >> vice
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > versa).
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > As
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in
>> relation
>> > to
>> > > > > > > > Micronaut,
>> > > > > > > > >> I
>> > > > > > > > >> > > would
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > recommend
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is
>> > deployed
>> > > > in
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > >> > serverless
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > function
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster
>> > > > faster),
>> > > > > > > while
>> > > > > > > > >> for
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > micro-services
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the
>> spring
>> > > bean
>> > > > > > > > definition
>> > > > > > > > >> > was
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > mainly
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what
>> fields
>> > are
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > most
>> > > > > > > > >> > > relevant.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important
>> > > point
>> > > > > > about
>> > > > > > > > >> > > Micronaut.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Let
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > me
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration
>> > > igniteConfiguration
>> > > > =
>> > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the
>> > communicationSpi
>> > > > bean
>> > > > > > > below
>> > > > > > > > >> > > without
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > having
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as a field of the
>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration?
>> > > > Are
>> > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > >> > getting a
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ignite:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of
>> the
>> > > SPI}
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael
>> > > > Pollind <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I
>> quickly
>> > > threw
>> > > > > > > > together
>> > > > > > > > >> > along
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this
>> might
>> > > > get a
>> > > > > > > > little
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > complicated
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but I
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM
>> Michael
>> > > > > Pollind <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the
>> > spring
>> > > > bean
>> > > > > > > > >> definition
>> > > > > > > > >> > > was
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mainly
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what
>> fields
>> > > are
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > most
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Will
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the
>> > > > configuration
>> > > > > > > might
>> > > > > > > > >> get a
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > little
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can
>> do
>> > is
>> > > > use
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values
>> and
>> > > you
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > pass
>> > > > > > > > >> > that
>> > > > > > > > >> > > to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > somewhere
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like
>> > this
>> > > as
>> > > > > > > > follows:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > igniteConfiguration =
>> > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
>> > > > > "communicationSpi")
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi
>> > > communicationSpi
>> > > > =
>> > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM
>> Michael
>> > > > > Pollind
>> > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when
>> > the
>> > > > > object
>> > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > declared. I
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > think
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple
>> > > > > > ConfigurationBuilders
>> > > > > > > > If
>> > > > > > > > >> i'm
>> > > > > > > > >> > > not
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > mistaken
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't
>> need
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > provide
>> > > > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > name
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > since
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each
>> > configuration
>> > > > > under
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to
>> that
>> > > bean
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > also
>> > > > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > same
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most
>> part
>> > > will
>> > > > > just
>> > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > primary
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > bean
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have
>> one
>> > > > cache
>> > > > > > > > >> instance
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > active
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at a
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > time.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is
>> the
>> > > > primary
>> > > > > > > bean
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > >> > used
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > by
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use
>> micronaut-cache
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > > > anything
>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the
>> other
>> > > if
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > configuration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > present.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is
>> micronaut-cache. We
>> > > can
>> > > > > > only
>> > > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > >> one
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > instance
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how
>> > that
>> > > > > works
>> > > > > > > > >> again.
>> > > > > > > > >> > By
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace
>> the
>> > > > > > thin-client
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > DynamicCache
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM
>> Denis
>> > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to
>> work
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > > > multiple
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master
>> branch.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single
>> > > > instance
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > >> thick
>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > thin
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are
>> > > multi-threaded
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > >> > > utilize
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > CPUs
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not
>> harmful
>> > to
>> > > > > have
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > ability
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > configure
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As
>> far
>> > > as
>> > > > I
>> > > > > > > > >> understand,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Micronaut
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > property,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for
>> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration?
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what
>> those
>> > > > > defaults
>> > > > > > > > are?
>> > > > > > > > >> By
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > looking
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of
>> "configuration"), I
>> > > see
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> > Micronaut
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > could
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the
>> > ClientConfiguration
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > >> prepared
>> > > > > > > > >> > > these
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properties
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am
>> > > > > configuring
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> thin
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > client
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in a
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an
>> instance
>> > > of
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can
>> > > override
>> > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > >> > settings
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > such
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or
>> > > "enablePartitionAwareness".
>> > > > > Does
>> > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > >> > sound
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > accurate
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the
>> > IgniteConfiguration,
>> > > I
>> > > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > just
>> > > > > > > > >> > swap
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > "path"
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config"
>> that is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > IgniteConfiguration.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Then
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > let
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the
>> > > IgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > defaults
>> > > > > > > > >> and
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > allow a
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
>> > > > > > > > >> discoverySPI.ipFinder
>> > > > > > > > >> > > or
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > memory
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can
>> find
>> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > defaults
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > here
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM
>> Michael
>> > > > > > Pollind <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to
>> work
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > > > multiple
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master
>> branch.
>> > I
>> > > > > > believe
>> > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > >> was
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > originally
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the
>> > > default
>> > > > > > > ignite
>> > > > > > > > >> > > instance
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > found
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the
>> > > > configuration.
>> > > > > > So
>> > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > defaults
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those
>> > > > factory
>> > > > > > > items
>> > > > > > > > >> can't
>> > > > > > > > >> > > be
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > covered
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
>> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationProperty
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > can
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > only
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there
>> are
>> > > > ways
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > multiple
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > factories
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that
>> easily
>> > > gets
>> > > > > > > > >> overwhelming.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > In
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would
>> > probably
>> > > be
>> > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > >> ideal
>> > > > > > > > >> > in
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying
>> > that
>> > > I
>> > > > > > > wouldn't
>> > > > > > > > >> be
>> > > > > > > > >> > > able
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > cover
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true
>> thin-clients:
>> > > > > > > default:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > address:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
>> > > > 127.0.0.1:10801"
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "
>> > 127.0.0.1:10800
>> > > "
>> > > > > > > - "
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > "
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current
>> > snapshot
>> > > > > > > > >> documentation:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM
>> Denis
>> > > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out
>> the
>> > > > wiki
>> > > > > > > page.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the
>> > Auto-Configuration
>> > > > > wiki
>> > > > > > > > >> section
>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > current
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the
>> > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the
>> > > > > following
>> > > > > > > > >> changes:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the
>> > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
>> > > > > > > > >> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > as
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > done
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this
>> change is
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > developers
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > might
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the
>> > > > integration
>> > > > > > > scope
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > >> > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the
>> > > "name"
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > >> "path".
>> > > > > > > > >> > I
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > replace
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config"
>> one
>> > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> instantiates
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration.
>> > > > > > If
>> > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > >> do
>> > > > > > > > >> > > that,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > then
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any
>> property
>> > > of
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's
>> > done
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> Ignite
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > Spring
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Boot
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same
>> with
>> > > > > > Micronaut.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous
>> modification
>> > is
>> > > > > > > feasible,
>> > > > > > > > >> > then I
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > rework
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client
>> configuration
>> > > > > > > similarly,
>> > > > > > > > >> > taking
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > our
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Spring
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin
>> client
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the
>> > > > current
>> > > > > > > > version
>> > > > > > > > >> of
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > > >> > configuration/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would
>> > only
>> > > > > > rename
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > "configuration"
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction"
>> field
>> > > since
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > >> pass
>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML
>> following
>> > > the
>> > > > > > format
>> > > > > > > > >> below:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses:
>> <IP_addresses>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> partitionAwarenessEnabled:
>> > > true
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> transactionConfiguration:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > defaultTxConcurrency:...
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM
>> > > Michael
>> > > > > > > > Pollind <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so
>> > those
>> > > > > > methods
>> > > > > > > > get
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrapped
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > into a
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below
>> > I've
>> > > > > > listed
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > sections
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each
>> annotation
>> > > > along
>> > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > methods
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > get
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm
>> > working
>> > > > > from.
>> > > > > > > > >> Hopefully
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > helps.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig
>> > > > > annotation
>> > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > >> this
>> > > > > > > > >> > > can
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > changed
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent
>> the
>> > > key.
>> > > > > By
>> > > > > > > > >> default
>> > > > > > > > >> > it
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > uses
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>> > > > > > > > >> > interceptor/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this
>> document
>> > on
>> > > > > > sunday:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I
>> could
>> > > > > expand
>> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > >> > how
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > could
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a
>> get
>> > and
>> > > > > > issue a
>> > > > > > > > >> put if
>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > value
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will
>> invalidate
>> > if
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > return
>> > > > > > > > >> is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > null
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > else
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a
>> > > mistake
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > my
>> > > > > > > > >> code
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > because I
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to
>> > > investigate
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> closer
>> > > > > > > > >> > > and
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > write
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the
>> > behaviour.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will
>> > just
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > > removed
>> > > > > > > > >> by
>> > > > > > > > >> > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > key.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23
>> PM
>> > > > Saikat
>> > > > > > > > Maitra <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable
>> Object
>> > > you
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > using
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > @CachePut,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and
>> > @CacheInvalidate
>> > > > > > > > annotations
>> > > > > > > > >> > and I
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > was
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > trying
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these
>> annotation
>> > > then
>> > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > >> would
>> > > > > > > > >> > be
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > underlying
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen?
>> and
>> > > how
>> > > > > > those
>> > > > > > > > >> > > operations
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user
>> call
>> > > this
>> > > > > > below
>> > > > > > > > >> method
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > then
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > how
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String
>> name) {
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
>> > > > > > > > >> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
>> > > > > > > > >> > 0
>> > > > > > > > >> > > })
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at
>> 7:21 PM
>> > > > > Michael
>> > > > > > > > >> Pollind
>> > > > > > > > >> > <
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these
>> > annotations
>> > > > do
>> > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > mean
>> > > > > > > > >> > this
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment
>> is
>> > > > split
>> > > > > > into
>> > > > > > > > >> > multiple
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > modules.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The
>> > plan
>> > > > was
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > also
>> > > > > > > > >> > have
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-data
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get
>> > > working
>> > > > > > > > correctly
>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > basic
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to
>> > > verify
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > API
>> > > > > > > > >> > > described
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would
>> work
>> > > > best.
>> > > > > At
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > moment
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the
>> > > thin-cache
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > how
>> > > > > > > > >> that
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > would
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > fit
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > into
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the
>> > > added
>> > > > > > > > complexity
>> > > > > > > > >> > but
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > sure
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have
>> it
>> > as
>> > > a
>> > > > > > > separate
>> > > > > > > > >> > module
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut
>> > project
>> > > > > where
>> > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > >> > > module
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > also
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > has a
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The
>> > AsyncCache
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > >> SyncCache
>> > > > > > > > >> > > are
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > two
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines.
>> > There
>> > > > are
>> > > > > > two
>> > > > > > > > >> ways to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > define
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide
>> beans
>> > > for
>> > > > > > > > AsyncCache
>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > SyncCache
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a
>> DynamicCacheManager
>> > > that
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > name
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the
>> > cache
>> > > > > used.
>> > > > > > In
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > documentation
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
>> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list
>> of
>> > > > caches
>> > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > >> want
>> > > > > > > > >> > and
>> > > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> --
>> > > > > > > > >> -
>> > > > > > > > >> Denis
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
Not sure, I would probably bring that up in the PR so the micronaut devs
are aware of this. Not sure how the CI will work and what can be arranged
in this case.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 3:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> The docs look good enough for the release. Once the integration is
> released, I'll update and extend my Micronaut tutorial elucidating on how
> to use the integration in practice for various use cases.
>
> Btw, are the ignite-core and ignite-cache Maven artifacts will be released
> for a specific version of Ignite? Ideally, the version of Ignite needs to
> be set in a pom.xml and the Micronaut integration should pick them up.
>
> Also, what are we doing next - reviewing APIs of the ignite-cache module or
> going through a review process of the ignite-core and merging it first to
> the Micronaut repository?
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Also you need to sign the CLA since you add a commit to my branch.
> >
> > branch: https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework
> > linked PR:
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> >
> > --
> > Michael Pollind
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Could you share the full path to the branch? Don't want to pick a wrong
> > one
> > > accidentally.
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:47 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > so that clears up the extra flag for micronaut-cache. just need to
> > > > intercept the default IgniteConfiguration bean and update the
> > > > configuration. if you pull my latest changes from the rework branch
> you
> > > can
> > > > look at the docs for that micronaut module. `./gradlew docs`.
> > Finalizing
> > > > the docs should be the last part of this. The configuration from my
> > > > perspective seems pretty much there. Is there anything else that is
> > > > missing?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:31 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 👍 Nice catch!
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > One thing that just occurred to me for the
> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > you
> > > > > > can actually just intercept the bean when it's created. This
> should
> > > let
> > > > > us
> > > > > > use the enable flag from ignite-core for ignite-cache without the
> > > > > > additional flag.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @Singleton
> > > > > > public class IgniteConfigurationFactoryInterceptor implements
> > > > > > BeanCreatedEventListener<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> {
> > > > > > @Override
> > > > > > public IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > onCreated(BeanCreatedEvent<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> event) {
> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration configuration = event.getBean();
> > > > > > configuration.setIgniteInstanceName("instance-a");
> > > > > > return configuration;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looks terrific! I went ahead and grouped the configuration
> > samples
> > > > by a
> > > > > > > client type:
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As you see, the "Ignite Thin Client" section is blank for now.
> > > Would
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > mind filling it with configuration options following the format
> > > taken
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the thick client?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ping me here once you're ready to review the API and
> > implementation
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > ignite-caching module.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:16 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here is a sample project I threw together and I've also
> updated
> > > the
> > > > > > wiki
> > > > > > > > just a bit. working on updating the documentation on the
> > > micronaut
> > > > > end.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config. splitting it
> > into
> > > > two
> > > > > > > > modules
> > > > > > > > > seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't really
> > like
> > > > the
> > > > > > > random
> > > > > > > > > boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your
> > provider:
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > kind of strange that there are not getters for the
> > > > > > > > > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to
> verify
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've written.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > static ip finder
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > > > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
> > > > > > "localhost:1800",
> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" :
> "true",
> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "
> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:47500
> > > > > > > ",
> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "
> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:47501
> > > > > > > ",
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > kubernetties ip finder
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "ignite.enabled" :
> true,
> > > > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
> > > > > > > "localhost:1800",
> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" :
> > "true",
> > > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace":
> > > > "HelloWorld"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <
> > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Michael,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the ignite-cache
> > > > module
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > >> (one for a thick-client based connection and the other for
> > > thin
> > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > >> connections), and would try to avoid this route if
> possible.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut developers can
> > > > create
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> generic
> > > > > > > > >> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite connectivity
> > > > > methods,
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > >> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache implementation
> > can
> > > > > > decide
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > >> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one,
> > depends
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> of a client you started with our auto-configuration
> > feature).
> > > > > Let’s
> > > > > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > > > > >> all the existing issues here and jump on another call to
> > > > finalize
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> solution if needed.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Michael,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went ahead
> and
> > > > > pushed
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those
> > changes
> > > > do
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >> minor
> > > > > > > > >> > tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration class
> > and
> > > > add
> > > > > > > > Static
> > > > > > > > >> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the
> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > class.
> > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think we'll
> > > > figure
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > modify the test on the call today.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure IgniteCaches
> > via
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > >> > configuration. If an application needs to create any
> > caches,
> > > > it
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > > >> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that
> > these
> > > > can
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > provided through a factory.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > @Bean
> > > > > > > > >> > @Named("default")
> > > > > > > > >> > @Primary
> > > > > > > > >> > public IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > configuration,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration> cacheConfigurations,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration>
> > > executorConfigurations,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > Optional<CollisionSpi>
> > > > > > > > >> collisionSpi,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > Collection<FailoverSpi>
> > > > > > > > >> failoverSpis,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > @ConsistencyId
> > > > > > > > >> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > @IgniteLifecycle
> > > > > > > > >> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
> > > > > > > > >> CacheConfiguration[0]))
> > > > > > > > >> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new
> > > > > > > PluginProvider[0]))
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
> > > > > > > > >> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
> > > > > > > > >> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new
> > > > > FailoverSpi[0]))
> > > > > > > > >> >
> .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
> > > > > > > > >> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
> > > > > > > > >> > .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
> > > > > > > > >> > .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new
> > > > > > > > LifecycleBean[0]))
> > > > > > > > >> > .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
> > > > > > > > >> > return configuration;
> > > > > > > > >> > }
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks like now.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > ignite:
> > > > > > > > >> > enabled: true
> > > > > > > > >> > comunication-spi:
> > > > > > > > >> > local-port: 5555
> > > > > > > > >> > cache-configurations:
> > > > > > > > >> > - accounts:
> > > > > > > > >> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
> > > > > > > > >> > key-type: String
> > > > > > > > >> > - books:
> > > > > > > > >> > table-name: BOOKS
> > > > > > > > >> > key-type: String
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its
> > > static
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > >> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not
> work
> > > in
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> case. So
> > > > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the
> > > environment.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > >> > working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it
> > would
> > > > have
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > > > DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum
> working
> > > > setup
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> then
> > > > > > > > >> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
> "dataStorageConfiguration",
> > > > > > excludes =
> > > > > > > > >> "dataRegionConfigurations")
> > > > > > > > >> > final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration
> =
> > > new
> > > > > > > > >> DataStorageConfiguration();
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
> > > > > > > > >> > public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration =
> new
> > > > > > > > >> DataRegionConfiguration();
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > public DataRegionConfiguration
> > > > getDataRegionConfiguration()
> > > > > {
> > > > > > > > >> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
> > > > > > > > >> > }
> > > > > > > > >> > }
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Dennis,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it
> > > because
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> didn't
> > > > > > > > >> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
> > > > > > > > >> ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > is a final class so that can't be extended from. This PR
> > is
> > > > > > starting
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the
> > > > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > > > >> The
> > > > > > > > >> > other thing I did was add a flag for the associated
> cache
> > to
> > > > use
> > > > > > > > >> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see
> > If I
> > > > can
> > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > > > >> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you
> can
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > >> own
> > > > > > > > >> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > [image: image.png]
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Michael,
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks, for verifying.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't
> get
> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder.
> > Instead
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> just
> > > > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default
> > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> its
> > > > > > > > >> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast
> > > core:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
> > > > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their
> > > > > Micronaut's
> > > > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following
> > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > parameteres:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the
> > > parent
> > > > > > > > >> ClientConfig
> > > > > > > > >> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes =
> > > > > {"properties",
> > > > > > > > >> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext",
> > "clusterName"}*
> > > > > > > > >> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig,
> > > SocketOptions
> > > > > > > > >> properties
> > > > > > > > >> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not
> > be
> > > > > > > inherited
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > above. Thus, they define those with
> > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > > > > manually.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > As a result, their implementation is simple and compact,
> > and
> > > > > here
> > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > >> > final list of configuration properties:
> > > > > > > > >> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Could you check if we can follow a similar approach?
> Let's
> > > > start
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > thin client. It's much simpler.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > yea, will need to
> > > > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean
> because
> > > > there
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > >> way
> > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't
> quite
> > > > worked
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > > > >> > > yet.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me
> > > know
> > > > if
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> need
> > > > > > > > >> > me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Dennis,
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > This is what I came up with with some of the
> > suggestions:
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > > > > > >> >
> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > > > > >> > java
> > > > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > > > > > >> >
> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > test cases:
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > > > > > >> >
> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't
> > get
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder.
> > Instead
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> just
> > > > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
> > > > > > > > >> ConfigurationProperty
> > > > > > > > >> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in
> the
> > > > > > > > >> documentation is
> > > > > > > > >> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't
> > > think
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > work
> > > > > > > > >> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest
> > > > @EachProperty
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > single
> > > > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with
> how
> > > > stuff
> > > > > > gets
> > > > > > > > >> > resolved
> > > > > > > > >> > > (
> > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938
> > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > >> so
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind
> of a
> > > > first
> > > > > > > > working
> > > > > > > > >> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit.
> > yea,
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean
> because
> > > > there
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > >> way
> > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't
> quite
> > > > worked
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > > > >> > > yet.
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the
> > > confluence.
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Michael,
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration
> > > > > specificities.
> > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > >> > > confused
> > > > > > > > >> > > > me before, is that even though the beans
> configuration
> > > in
> > > > > > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > > > >> > looks
> > > > > > > > >> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the
> former
> > > > > > automates
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> lot
> > > > > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our
> > > default
> > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > >> Boot
> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration looks
> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
> > > > > > > > >> > modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any
> > > > possible
> > > > > > > > >> property
> > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > > >> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > The upside of the reflection.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I
> > would
> > > > > > suggest.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration
> that
> > > > > > *extends*
> > > > > > > > >> > Ignite's
> > > > > > > > >> > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > > >> > ClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most
> of
> > > > > > > > >> > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's
> > how
> > > > you
> > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > >> doing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > before I joined the review)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class
> are
> > of
> > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > >> > > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
> > > > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > > > > > >> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType,
> sslProtocol,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can
> we
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > > >> another
> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration
> bean
> > > is
> > > > > > > created
> > > > > > > > >> > > > programmatically in the source code and the
> > integration
> > > > uses
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> bean
> > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead
> of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires
> to
> > > set
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > properties
> > > > > > > > >> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the
> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> bean
> > > > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
> > > > > > > > >> > programmatically
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite
> > object.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous
> > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > .
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the
> > most
> > > > > > > frequently
> > > > > > > > >> used
> > > > > > > > >> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
> > > > > > > > >> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it
> > seems
> > > > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's
> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> (so
> > > > > > > > >> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive
> > > types).
> > > > > > Based
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> my
> > > > > > > > >> > > > experience, I would add the following settings of
> > custom
> > > > > > > > >> non-primitive
> > > > > > > > >> > > > types:
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
> > > > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be
> > > done
> > > > > > > easily,
> > > > > > > > >> > right,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In
> the
> > > > > > > beginning,
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > only
> > > > > > > > >> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > > > > > > > >> >
> spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
> > > > > > > > >> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
> > > > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >via
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > > >> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > including
> > > > > > > > >> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions
> property.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
> > > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > > > > > > > >> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm
> > > > > assuming
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> we
> > > > > > > > >> > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > do
> > > > > > > > >> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through
> > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > > > > > >> > > > (include)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > or inheritence.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings
> > unsupported
> > > by
> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a
> way
> > > to
> > > > > > create
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it
> > to
> > > > > > > initialize
> > > > > > > > >> an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Ignite instance (instead of
> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still
> missing
> > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > > > > >> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1]
> > and
> > > > > > network
> > > > > > > > >> options
> > > > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement
> > > > something
> > > > > > > > >> similar to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Let me know what you think.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > > > >> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through
> > > > > > experimentation.
> > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > >> > > ask
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty
> comprehensive:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html
> > .
> > > > look
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt
> > through
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > >> > > > existing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those
> configuration
> > > > items
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> setup.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > There
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core
> > which
> > > > have
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > >> > pretty
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of
> > these
> > > > > > > > annotations
> > > > > > > > >> > work
> > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > practice.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible
> > > quantity
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > instances
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to
> > > > > auto-configure a
> > > > > > > > >> single
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the
> > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > >> matters
> > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can
> > > > suggest.
> > > > > > > Could
> > > > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > recommend
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut
> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > > specifies
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source
> > > code)?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael
> Pollind <
> > > > > > > > >> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to
> infer
> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > communicationSpi,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > so
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should
> look
> > > > pretty
> > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > >> like
> > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration
> > easier
> > > > with
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > >> > > allowing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with
> > spring-boot
> > > > > > > > >> configuration:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having
> > > that
> > > > as
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > default
> > > > > > > > >> > > > use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition
> will
> > > work
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> follows:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable true
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - ...
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable: false
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the
> > > > presence
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > something
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda
> <
> > > > > > > > >> dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the
> > > primary
> > > > > > bean
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> used
> > > > > > > > >> > > by
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache
> > > with
> > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm
> convinced
> > > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > shouldn't
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > bother
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite
> > > > > instances.
> > > > > > > As I
> > > > > > > > >> said
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > before,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case.
> Furthermore,
> > > > > > Micronout
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > designed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions
> and
> > I
> > > > can
> > > > > > > hardly
> > > > > > > > >> > think
> > > > > > > > >> > > > of a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function
> would
> > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > boot
> > > > > > > > >> up
> > > > > > > > >> > > > several
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure
> a
> > > > single
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > instance
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > per
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on
> > this?
> > > > It
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > significantly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of
> > > > > > integration.
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > >> > > anybody
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > needs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can
> > > > instantiate
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > >> > > manually.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > By default the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the
> > > > > thin-client
> > > > > > > > >> > > DynamicCache
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I
> > > would
> > > > > > simply
> > > > > > > > >> > disallow
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite
> instance
> > > (let
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > >> > thick
> > > > > > > > >> > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is
> > > > already
> > > > > > > > >> started,
> > > > > > > > >> > > then
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > throw
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a
> thin
> > > > > client
> > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > >> vice
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > versa).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in
> relation
> > to
> > > > > > > > Micronaut,
> > > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > > >> > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > recommend
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is
> > deployed
> > > > in
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > serverless
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster
> > > > faster),
> > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > micro-services
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring
> > > bean
> > > > > > > > definition
> > > > > > > > >> > was
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > mainly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields
> > are
> > > > the
> > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > >> > > relevant.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important
> > > point
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > >> > > Micronaut.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Let
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration
> > > igniteConfiguration
> > > > =
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the
> > communicationSpi
> > > > bean
> > > > > > > below
> > > > > > > > >> > > without
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as a field of the
> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration?
> > > > Are
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> > getting a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the
> > > SPI}
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael
> > > > Pollind <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly
> > > threw
> > > > > > > > together
> > > > > > > > >> > along
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this
> might
> > > > get a
> > > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > complicated
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael
> > > > > Pollind <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the
> > spring
> > > > bean
> > > > > > > > >> definition
> > > > > > > > >> > > was
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mainly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what
> fields
> > > are
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the
> > > > configuration
> > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > >> get a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > little
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do
> > is
> > > > use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values
> and
> > > you
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like
> > this
> > > as
> > > > > > > > follows:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > igniteConfiguration =
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
> > > > > "communicationSpi")
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi
> > > communicationSpi
> > > > =
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM
> Michael
> > > > > Pollind
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when
> > the
> > > > > object
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > declared. I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple
> > > > > > ConfigurationBuilders
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > >> i'm
> > > > > > > > >> > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > mistaken
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't
> need
> > > to
> > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > name
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each
> > configuration
> > > > > under
> > > > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that
> > > bean
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > same
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part
> > > will
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > bean
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have
> one
> > > > cache
> > > > > > > > >> instance
> > > > > > > > >> > > > active
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the
> > > > primary
> > > > > > > bean
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > used
> > > > > > > > >> > > > by
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use
> micronaut-cache
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > >> > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the
> other
> > > if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache.
> We
> > > can
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > >> one
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how
> > that
> > > > > works
> > > > > > > > >> again.
> > > > > > > > >> > By
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the
> > > > > > thin-client
> > > > > > > > >> > > > DynamicCache
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis
> > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to
> work
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master
> branch.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single
> > > > instance
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> thick
> > > > > > > > >> > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are
> > > multi-threaded
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > utilize
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > all
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > CPUs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not
> harmful
> > to
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > ability
> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > configure
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As
> far
> > > as
> > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> understand,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > property,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for
> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what
> those
> > > > > defaults
> > > > > > > > are?
> > > > > > > > >> By
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > looking
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"),
> I
> > > see
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > Micronaut
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > could
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the
> > ClientConfiguration
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> prepared
> > > > > > > > >> > > these
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properties
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am
> > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> thin
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > client
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an
> instance
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can
> > > override
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >> > settings
> > > > > > > > >> > > > such
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or
> > > "enablePartitionAwareness".
> > > > > Does
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > sound
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > accurate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the
> > IgniteConfiguration,
> > > I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > >> > swap
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > "path"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that
> is
> > > > > > > > >> > > IgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Then
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the
> > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > > defaults
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > allow a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
> > > > > > > > >> discoverySPI.ipFinder
> > > > > > > > >> > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
> > > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > defaults
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM
> Michael
> > > > > > Pollind <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to
> work
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master
> branch.
> > I
> > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > originally
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the
> > > default
> > > > > > > ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > instance
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > found
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the
> > > > configuration.
> > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > >> > > > defaults
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those
> > > > factory
> > > > > > > items
> > > > > > > > >> can't
> > > > > > > > >> > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > covered
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
> > > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationProperty
> > > > > > > > >> > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there
> are
> > > > ways
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > factories
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily
> > > gets
> > > > > > > > >> overwhelming.
> > > > > > > > >> > > In
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would
> > probably
> > > be
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> ideal
> > > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying
> > that
> > > I
> > > > > > > wouldn't
> > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > able
> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > cover
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true
> thin-clients:
> > > > > > > default:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > address:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
> > > > 127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "
> > 127.0.0.1:10800
> > > "
> > > > > > > - "
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current
> > snapshot
> > > > > > > > >> documentation:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM
> Denis
> > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out
> the
> > > > wiki
> > > > > > > page.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the
> > Auto-Configuration
> > > > > wiki
> > > > > > > > >> section
> > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the
> > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > > >> > configuration/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the
> > > > > following
> > > > > > > > >> changes:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the
> > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
> > > > > > > > >> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change
> is
> > > > that
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > developers
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the
> > > > integration
> > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the
> > > "name"
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> "path".
> > > > > > > > >> > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config"
> one
> > > that
> > > > > > > > >> instantiates
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> do
> > > > > > > > >> > > that,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any
> property
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's
> > done
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Boot
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with
> > > > > > Micronaut.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous
> modification
> > is
> > > > > > > feasible,
> > > > > > > > >> > then I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > rework
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client
> configuration
> > > > > > > similarly,
> > > > > > > > >> > taking
> > > > > > > > >> > > > our
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin
> client
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the
> > > > current
> > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > > >> > configuration/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would
> > only
> > > > > > rename
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > "configuration"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field
> > > since
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> pass
> > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML
> following
> > > the
> > > > > > format
> > > > > > > > >> below:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> partitionAwarenessEnabled:
> > > true
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM
> > > Michael
> > > > > > > > Pollind <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so
> > those
> > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrapped
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below
> > I've
> > > > > > listed
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > relevant
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > sections
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each
> annotation
> > > > along
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > methods
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm
> > working
> > > > > from.
> > > > > > > > >> Hopefully
> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > helps.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig
> > > > > annotation
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent
> the
> > > key.
> > > > > By
> > > > > > > > >> default
> > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > uses
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > > >> > interceptor/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this
> document
> > on
> > > > > > sunday:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I
> could
> > > > > expand
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > how
> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get
> > and
> > > > > > issue a
> > > > > > > > >> put if
> > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will
> invalidate
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > return
> > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> > > null
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a
> > > mistake
> > > > > in
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > because I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to
> > > investigate
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> closer
> > > > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the
> > behaviour.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will
> > just
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > removed
> > > > > > > > >> by
> > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > key.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM
> > > > Saikat
> > > > > > > > Maitra <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable
> Object
> > > you
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > @CachePut,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and
> > @CacheInvalidate
> > > > > > > > annotations
> > > > > > > > >> > and I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > was
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these
> annotation
> > > then
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen?
> and
> > > how
> > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > >> > > operations
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user
> call
> > > this
> > > > > > below
> > > > > > > > >> method
> > > > > > > > >> > > > then
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String
> name) {
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
> > > > > > > > >> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
> > > > > > > > >> > 0
> > > > > > > > >> > > })
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21
> PM
> > > > > Michael
> > > > > > > > >> Pollind
> > > > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these
> > annotations
> > > > do
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment
> is
> > > > split
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > >> > multiple
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > modules.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The
> > plan
> > > > was
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > >> > have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-data
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get
> > > working
> > > > > > > > correctly
> > > > > > > > >> > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > basic
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to
> > > verify
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > >> > > described
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would
> work
> > > > best.
> > > > > At
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > moment
> > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the
> > > thin-cache
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > fit
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the
> > > added
> > > > > > > > complexity
> > > > > > > > >> > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it
> > as
> > > a
> > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > >> > module
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut
> > project
> > > > > where
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > module
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > also
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The
> > AsyncCache
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> SyncCache
> > > > > > > > >> > > are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines.
> > There
> > > > are
> > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > >> ways to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > define
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide
> beans
> > > for
> > > > > > > > AsyncCache
> > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > SyncCache
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a
> DynamicCacheManager
> > > that
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > name
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the
> > cache
> > > > > used.
> > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > documentation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list
> of
> > > > caches
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> want
> > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > >> -
> > > > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Michael,
The docs look good enough for the release. Once the integration is
released, I'll update and extend my Micronaut tutorial elucidating on how
to use the integration in practice for various use cases.
Btw, are the ignite-core and ignite-cache Maven artifacts will be released
for a specific version of Ignite? Ideally, the version of Ignite needs to
be set in a pom.xml and the Micronaut integration should pick them up.
Also, what are we doing next - reviewing APIs of the ignite-cache module or
going through a review process of the ignite-core and merging it first to
the Micronaut repository?
-
Denis
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:35 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also you need to sign the CLA since you add a commit to my branch.
>
> branch: https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework
> linked PR: https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>
> --
> Michael Pollind
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Could you share the full path to the branch? Don't want to pick a wrong
> one
> > accidentally.
> >
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:47 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > so that clears up the extra flag for micronaut-cache. just need to
> > > intercept the default IgniteConfiguration bean and update the
> > > configuration. if you pull my latest changes from the rework branch you
> > can
> > > look at the docs for that micronaut module. `./gradlew docs`.
> Finalizing
> > > the docs should be the last part of this. The configuration from my
> > > perspective seems pretty much there. Is there anything else that is
> > > missing?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:31 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 👍 Nice catch!
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Michael Pollind <mpollind@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > One thing that just occurred to me for the
> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > you
> > > > > can actually just intercept the bean when it's created. This should
> > let
> > > > us
> > > > > use the enable flag from ignite-core for ignite-cache without the
> > > > > additional flag.
> > > > >
> > > > > @Singleton
> > > > > public class IgniteConfigurationFactoryInterceptor implements
> > > > > BeanCreatedEventListener<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> {
> > > > > @Override
> > > > > public IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > onCreated(BeanCreatedEvent<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> event) {
> > > > > IgniteConfiguration configuration = event.getBean();
> > > > > configuration.setIgniteInstanceName("instance-a");
> > > > > return configuration;
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looks terrific! I went ahead and grouped the configuration
> samples
> > > by a
> > > > > > client type:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you see, the "Ignite Thin Client" section is blank for now.
> > Would
> > > > you
> > > > > > mind filling it with configuration options following the format
> > taken
> > > > for
> > > > > > the thick client?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ping me here once you're ready to review the API and
> implementation
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > ignite-caching module.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:16 PM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is a sample project I threw together and I've also updated
> > the
> > > > > wiki
> > > > > > > just a bit. working on updating the documentation on the
> > micronaut
> > > > end.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config. splitting it
> into
> > > two
> > > > > > > modules
> > > > > > > > seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't really
> like
> > > the
> > > > > > random
> > > > > > > > boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your
> provider:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > kind of strange that there are not getters for the
> > > > > > > > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to verify
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've written.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > static ip finder
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
> > > > > "localhost:1800",
> > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "
> > > > > 127.0.0.1:47500
> > > > > > ",
> > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "
> > > > > 127.0.0.1:47501
> > > > > > ",
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > kubernetties ip finder
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
> > > > > > "localhost:1800",
> > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" :
> "true",
> > > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace":
> > > "HelloWorld"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Michael,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the ignite-cache
> > > module
> > > > in
> > > > > > two
> > > > > > > >> (one for a thick-client based connection and the other for
> > thin
> > > > > client
> > > > > > > >> connections), and would try to avoid this route if possible.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut developers can
> > > create
> > > > a
> > > > > > > >> generic
> > > > > > > >> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite connectivity
> > > > methods,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > >> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache implementation
> can
> > > > > decide
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > >> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one,
> depends
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > >> of a client you started with our auto-configuration
> feature).
> > > > Let’s
> > > > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > > > >> all the existing issues here and jump on another call to
> > > finalize
> > > > a
> > > > > > > >> solution if needed.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > Michael,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went ahead and
> > > > pushed
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > >> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those
> changes
> > > do
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > >> minor
> > > > > > > >> > tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration class
> and
> > > add
> > > > > > > Static
> > > > > > > >> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the
> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > > class.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think we'll
> > > figure
> > > > > how
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > modify the test on the call today.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure IgniteCaches
> via
> > > the
> > > > > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > >> > configuration. If an application needs to create any
> caches,
> > > it
> > > > > can
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > >> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that
> these
> > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > provided through a factory.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > @Bean
> > > > > > > >> > @Named("default")
> > > > > > > >> > @Primary
> > > > > > > >> > public IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> configuration,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration> cacheConfigurations,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration>
> > executorConfigurations,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > Optional<CollisionSpi>
> > > > > > > >> collisionSpi,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > Collection<FailoverSpi>
> > > > > > > >> failoverSpis,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > @ConsistencyId
> > > > > > > >> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > @IgniteLifecycle
> > > > > > > >> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >
> > > configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
> > > > > > > >> CacheConfiguration[0]))
> > > > > > > >> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new
> > > > > > PluginProvider[0]))
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
> > > > > > > >> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
> > > > > > > >> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new
> > > > FailoverSpi[0]))
> > > > > > > >> > .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
> > > > > > > >> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
> > > > > > > >> > .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
> > > > > > > >> > .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new
> > > > > > > LifecycleBean[0]))
> > > > > > > >> > .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
> > > > > > > >> > return configuration;
> > > > > > > >> > }
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks like now.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > ignite:
> > > > > > > >> > enabled: true
> > > > > > > >> > comunication-spi:
> > > > > > > >> > local-port: 5555
> > > > > > > >> > cache-configurations:
> > > > > > > >> > - accounts:
> > > > > > > >> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
> > > > > > > >> > key-type: String
> > > > > > > >> > - books:
> > > > > > > >> > table-name: BOOKS
> > > > > > > >> > key-type: String
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its
> > static
> > > > and
> > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > >> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not work
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > > > >> case. So
> > > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the
> > environment.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > >> > working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it
> would
> > > have
> > > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > > DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum working
> > > setup
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> then
> > > > > > > >> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "dataStorageConfiguration",
> > > > > excludes =
> > > > > > > >> "dataRegionConfigurations")
> > > > > > > >> > final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration =
> > new
> > > > > > > >> DataStorageConfiguration();
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
> > > > > > > >> > public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
> > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration = new
> > > > > > > >> DataRegionConfiguration();
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > public DataRegionConfiguration
> > > getDataRegionConfiguration()
> > > > {
> > > > > > > >> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
> > > > > > > >> > }
> > > > > > > >> > }
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Dennis,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it
> > because
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> didn't
> > > > > > > >> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
> > > > > > > >> ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > is a final class so that can't be extended from. This PR
> is
> > > > > starting
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the
> > > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > > >> The
> > > > > > > >> > other thing I did was add a flag for the associated cache
> to
> > > use
> > > > > > > >> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see
> If I
> > > can
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > > >> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can
> > > > provide
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > >> own
> > > > > > > >> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > [image: image.png]
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <
> > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Michael,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Thanks, for verifying.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get
> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder.
> Instead
> > > > they
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> just
> > > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default
> > > > configuration
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> its
> > > > > > > >> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast
> > core:
> > > > > > > >> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
> > > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their
> > > > Micronaut's
> > > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following
> > > configuration
> > > > > > > >> > parameteres:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the
> > parent
> > > > > > > >> ClientConfig
> > > > > > > >> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes =
> > > > {"properties",
> > > > > > > >> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext",
> "clusterName"}*
> > > > > > > >> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig,
> > SocketOptions
> > > > > > > >> properties
> > > > > > > >> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not
> be
> > > > > > inherited
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > above. Thus, they define those with
> @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > > > manually.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > As a result, their implementation is simple and compact,
> and
> > > > here
> > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > >> > final list of configuration properties:
> > > > > > > >> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's
> > > start
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > thin client. It's much simpler.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > yea, will need to
> > > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because
> > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > >> way
> > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite
> > > worked
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > > >> > > yet.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me
> > know
> > > if
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> need
> > > > > > > >> > me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > Dennis,
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > This is what I came up with with some of the
> suggestions:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > > > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > > > >> > java
> > > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > > > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > test cases:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > > > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > > > > >> >
> > test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't
> get
> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder.
> Instead
> > > > they
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> just
> > > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
> > > > > > > >> ConfigurationProperty
> > > > > > > >> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the
> > > > > > > >> documentation is
> > > > > > > >> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't
> > think
> > > > this
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > work
> > > > > > > >> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest
> > > @EachProperty
> > > > > in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > single
> > > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how
> > > stuff
> > > > > gets
> > > > > > > >> > resolved
> > > > > > > >> > > (
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938
> > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > >> so
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a
> > > first
> > > > > > > working
> > > > > > > >> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit.
> yea,
> > > > will
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because
> > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > >> way
> > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite
> > > worked
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > > >> > > yet.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the
> > confluence.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Michael,
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration
> > > > specificities.
> > > > > > What
> > > > > > > >> > > confused
> > > > > > > >> > > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration
> > in
> > > > > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > > >> > looks
> > > > > > > >> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former
> > > > > automates
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> lot
> > > > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our
> > default
> > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > >> Boot
> > > > > > > >> > > > configuration looks
> > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
> > > > > > > >> > modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
> > > > > > > >> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any
> > > possible
> > > > > > > >> property
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > an
> > > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
> > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > >> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > > >.
> > > > > > > >> > > > The upside of the reflection.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I
> would
> > > > > suggest.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that
> > > > > *extends*
> > > > > > > >> > Ignite's
> > > > > > > >> > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > >> > ClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > >> > > > >.
> > > > > > > >> > > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
> > > > > > > >> > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's
> how
> > > you
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > > >> doing
> > > > > > > >> > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > before I joined the review)
> > > > > > > >> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are
> of
> > > > > custom
> > > > > > > >> > > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
> > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
> > > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > > > > >> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
> > > > > > > >> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we
> > > > support
> > > > > > > >> another
> > > > > > > >> > > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean
> > is
> > > > > > created
> > > > > > > >> > > > programmatically in the source code and the
> integration
> > > uses
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> bean
> > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
> > > > > > > >> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to
> > set
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > properties
> > > > > > > >> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the
> > > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> bean
> > > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
> > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
> > > > > > > >> > programmatically
> > > > > > > >> > > > >and
> > > > > > > >> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite
> object.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous
> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
> > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > .
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the
> most
> > > > > > frequently
> > > > > > > >> used
> > > > > > > >> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
> > > > > > > >> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it
> seems
> > > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's
> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> (so
> > > > > > > >> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive
> > types).
> > > > > Based
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> my
> > > > > > > >> > > > experience, I would add the following settings of
> custom
> > > > > > > >> non-primitive
> > > > > > > >> > > > types:
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
> > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
> > > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be
> > done
> > > > > > easily,
> > > > > > > >> > right,
> > > > > > > >> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the
> > > > > > beginning,
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > only
> > > > > > > >> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
> > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > > > > > > >> > spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
> > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
> > > > > > > >> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
> > > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
> > > > > > > >> > > > >via
> > > > > > > >> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > > > >> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > >
> > > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > >> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > including
> > > > > > > >> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
> > > > > > > >> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
> > > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > > > > > > >> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm
> > > > assuming
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> we
> > > > > > > >> > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > do
> > > > > > > >> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through
> > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > > > > >> > > > (include)
> > > > > > > >> > > > or inheritence.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings
> unsupported
> > by
> > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way
> > to
> > > > > create
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it
> to
> > > > > > initialize
> > > > > > > >> an
> > > > > > > >> > > > Ignite instance (instead of
> DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing
> > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > >> > > > -
> > > > > > > >> > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > > > >> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1]
> and
> > > > > network
> > > > > > > >> options
> > > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement
> > > something
> > > > > > > >> similar to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> > > > > > > >> > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Let me know what you think.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > > >> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through
> > > > > experimentation.
> > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > >> > > ask
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html
> .
> > > look
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt
> through
> > > the
> > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > >> > > > existing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration
> > > items
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> setup.
> > > > > > > >> > > > There
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core
> which
> > > have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > >> > pretty
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of
> these
> > > > > > > annotations
> > > > > > > >> > work
> > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > practice.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible
> > quantity
> > > of
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > instances
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to
> > > > auto-configure a
> > > > > > > >> single
> > > > > > > >> > > > > instance
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the
> > > > configuration
> > > > > > > >> matters
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can
> > > suggest.
> > > > > > Could
> > > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > recommend
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut
> > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > specifies
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source
> > code)?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > > >> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer
> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > communicationSpi,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > so
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look
> > > pretty
> > > > > > much
> > > > > > > >> like
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration
> easier
> > > with
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > >> > > allowing
> > > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with
> spring-boot
> > > > > > > >> configuration:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having
> > that
> > > as
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > default
> > > > > > > >> > > > use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will
> > work
> > > > as
> > > > > > > >> follows:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable true
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - ...
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable: false
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the
> > > presence
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > something
> > > > > > > >> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > >> dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the
> > primary
> > > > > bean
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> used
> > > > > > > >> > > by
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache
> > with
> > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other
> if
> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced
> > > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > shouldn't
> > > > > > > >> > > > > bother
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite
> > > > instances.
> > > > > > As I
> > > > > > > >> said
> > > > > > > >> > > > > before,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore,
> > > > > Micronout
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > designed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and
> I
> > > can
> > > > > > hardly
> > > > > > > >> > think
> > > > > > > >> > > > of a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > boot
> > > > > > > >> up
> > > > > > > >> > > > several
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a
> > > single
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > instance
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > per
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on
> this?
> > > It
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > significantly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of
> > > > > integration.
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > >> > > anybody
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > needs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can
> > > instantiate
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > >> > > manually.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > By default the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the
> > > > thin-client
> > > > > > > >> > > DynamicCache
> > > > > > > >> > > > > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I
> > would
> > > > > simply
> > > > > > > >> > disallow
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance
> > (let
> > > > it
> > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > >> > thick
> > > > > > > >> > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is
> > > already
> > > > > > > >> started,
> > > > > > > >> > > then
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > throw
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin
> > > > client
> > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > >> vice
> > > > > > > >> > > > > versa).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > As
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation
> to
> > > > > > > Micronaut,
> > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > >> > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > recommend
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is
> deployed
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > serverless
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > function
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster
> > > faster),
> > > > > > while
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > micro-services
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring
> > bean
> > > > > > > definition
> > > > > > > >> > was
> > > > > > > >> > > > > mainly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields
> are
> > > the
> > > > > > most
> > > > > > > >> > > relevant.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important
> > point
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > >> > > Micronaut.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Let
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
> > > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration
> > igniteConfiguration
> > > =
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the
> communicationSpi
> > > bean
> > > > > > below
> > > > > > > >> > > without
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > having
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as a field of the
> DefaultIgniteConfiguration?
> > > Are
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> > getting a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the
> > SPI}
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael
> > > Pollind <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly
> > threw
> > > > > > > together
> > > > > > > >> > along
> > > > > > > >> > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might
> > > get a
> > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > >> > > > > complicated
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael
> > > > Pollind <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the
> spring
> > > bean
> > > > > > > >> definition
> > > > > > > >> > > was
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mainly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields
> > are
> > > > the
> > > > > > most
> > > > > > > >> > > > relevant.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the
> > > configuration
> > > > > > might
> > > > > > > >> get a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > little
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do
> is
> > > use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and
> > you
> > > > can
> > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like
> this
> > as
> > > > > > > follows:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration
> > > > igniteConfiguration =
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
> > > > "communicationSpi")
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi
> > communicationSpi
> > > =
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael
> > > > Pollind
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when
> the
> > > > object
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > declared. I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple
> > > > > ConfigurationBuilders
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > >> i'm
> > > > > > > >> > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > mistaken
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need
> > to
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > name
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > since
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each
> configuration
> > > > under
> > > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that
> > bean
> > > > and
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > same
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part
> > will
> > > > just
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > primary
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > bean
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one
> > > cache
> > > > > > > >> instance
> > > > > > > >> > > > active
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > at a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the
> > > primary
> > > > > > bean
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > used
> > > > > > > >> > > > by
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache
> > > with
> > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > >> > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We
> > can
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > >> one
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how
> that
> > > > works
> > > > > > > >> again.
> > > > > > > >> > By
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the
> > > > > thin-client
> > > > > > > >> > > > DynamicCache
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis
> > > Magda <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work
> > > with
> > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single
> > > instance
> > > > > of
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> thick
> > > > > > > >> > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > thin
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are
> > multi-threaded
> > > > and
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > utilize
> > > > > > > >> > > > > all
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > CPUs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful
> to
> > > > have
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > ability
> > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > configure
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far
> > as
> > > I
> > > > > > > >> understand,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
> > > > > > > >> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > property,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for
> > > > > IgniteConfiguration?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those
> > > > defaults
> > > > > > > are?
> > > > > > > >> By
> > > > > > > >> > > > > looking
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
> > > > > > > >> > > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I
> > see
> > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > Micronaut
> > > > > > > >> > > > > could
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the
> ClientConfiguration
> > > and
> > > > > > > >> prepared
> > > > > > > >> > > these
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properties
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am
> > > > configuring
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> thin
> > > > > > > >> > > > > client
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can
> > override
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > >> > settings
> > > > > > > >> > > > such
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or
> > "enablePartitionAwareness".
> > > > Does
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > sound
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > accurate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the
> IgniteConfiguration,
> > I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > >> > swap
> > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > "path"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
> > > > > > > >> > > IgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Then
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the
> > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > defaults
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > allow a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
> > > > > > > >> discoverySPI.ipFinder
> > > > > > > >> > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > memory
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
> > > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > defaults
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael
> > > > > Pollind <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work
> > > with
> > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > originally
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the
> > default
> > > > > > ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > instance
> > > > > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > found
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the
> > > configuration.
> > > > > So
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > >> > > > defaults
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those
> > > factory
> > > > > > items
> > > > > > > >> can't
> > > > > > > >> > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > covered
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
> > > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationProperty
> > > > > > > >> > > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are
> > > ways
> > > > to
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> > > > multiple
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > factories
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily
> > gets
> > > > > > > >> overwhelming.
> > > > > > > >> > > In
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would
> probably
> > be
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > >> ideal
> > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying
> that
> > I
> > > > > > wouldn't
> > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > >> > > able
> > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > cover
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients:
> > > > > > default:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > address:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
> > > 127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "
> 127.0.0.1:10800
> > "
> > > > > > - "
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current
> snapshot
> > > > > > > >> documentation:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis
> > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the
> > > wiki
> > > > > > page.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the
> Auto-Configuration
> > > > wiki
> > > > > > > >> section
> > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the
> > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > >> > configuration/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the
> > > > following
> > > > > > > >> changes:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the
> > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
> > > > > > > >> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > developers
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > might
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the
> > > integration
> > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the
> > "name"
> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> "path".
> > > > > > > >> > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one
> > that
> > > > > > > >> instantiates
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> do
> > > > > > > >> > > that,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's
> done
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > Spring
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Boot
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with
> > > > > Micronaut.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification
> is
> > > > > > feasible,
> > > > > > > >> > then I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > rework
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration
> > > > > > similarly,
> > > > > > > >> > taking
> > > > > > > >> > > > our
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the
> > > current
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > >> > configuration/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would
> only
> > > > > rename
> > > > > > > >> > > > > "configuration"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field
> > since
> > > > you
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> pass
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following
> > the
> > > > > format
> > > > > > > >> below:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled:
> > true
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM
> > Michael
> > > > > > > Pollind <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so
> those
> > > > > methods
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > >> > > > wrapped
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below
> I've
> > > > > listed
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > relevant
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > sections
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation
> > > along
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > methods
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm
> working
> > > > from.
> > > > > > > >> Hopefully
> > > > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > helps.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig
> > > > annotation
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the
> > key.
> > > > By
> > > > > > > >> default
> > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > uses
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > >> > interceptor/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document
> on
> > > > > sunday:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could
> > > > expand
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > how
> > > > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get
> and
> > > > > issue a
> > > > > > > >> put if
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate
> if
> > > the
> > > > > > > return
> > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > >> > > null
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > else
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a
> > mistake
> > > > in
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > >> > > > > because I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to
> > investigate
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> closer
> > > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > write
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the
> behaviour.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will
> just
> > > be
> > > > > > > removed
> > > > > > > >> by
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > key.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM
> > > Saikat
> > > > > > > Maitra <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object
> > you
> > > > are
> > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > >> > > > > @CachePut,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and
> @CacheInvalidate
> > > > > > > annotations
> > > > > > > >> > and I
> > > > > > > >> > > > was
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation
> > then
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and
> > how
> > > > > those
> > > > > > > >> > > operations
> > > > > > > >> > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call
> > this
> > > > > below
> > > > > > > >> method
> > > > > > > >> > > > then
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
> > > > > > > >> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
> > > > > > > >> > 0
> > > > > > > >> > > })
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM
> > > > Michael
> > > > > > > >> Pollind
> > > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these
> annotations
> > > do
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is
> > > split
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > >> > multiple
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > modules.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The
> plan
> > > was
> > > > to
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > >> > have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-data
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get
> > working
> > > > > > > correctly
> > > > > > > >> > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > basic
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to
> > verify
> > > > the
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > >> > > described
> > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work
> > > best.
> > > > At
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > moment
> > > > > > > >> > > > I'm
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the
> > thin-cache
> > > > and
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > fit
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the
> > added
> > > > > > > complexity
> > > > > > > >> > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > I'm
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it
> as
> > a
> > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > >> > module
> > > > > > > >> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut
> project
> > > > where
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > module
> > > > > > > >> > > > > also
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The
> AsyncCache
> > > and
> > > > > > > >> SyncCache
> > > > > > > >> > > are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines.
> There
> > > are
> > > > > two
> > > > > > > >> ways to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > define
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans
> > for
> > > > > > > AsyncCache
> > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > SyncCache
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager
> > that
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > name
> > > > > > > >> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the
> cache
> > > > used.
> > > > > In
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > documentation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of
> > > caches
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> want
> > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > >> -
> > > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
Also you need to sign the CLA since you add a commit to my branch.
branch: https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework
linked PR: https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
--
Michael Pollind
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Could you share the full path to the branch? Don't want to pick a wrong one
> accidentally.
>
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:47 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > so that clears up the extra flag for micronaut-cache. just need to
> > intercept the default IgniteConfiguration bean and update the
> > configuration. if you pull my latest changes from the rework branch you
> can
> > look at the docs for that micronaut module. `./gradlew docs`. Finalizing
> > the docs should be the last part of this. The configuration from my
> > perspective seems pretty much there. Is there anything else that is
> > missing?
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:31 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > 👍 Nice catch!
> > >
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > One thing that just occurred to me for the
> DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > you
> > > > can actually just intercept the bean when it's created. This should
> let
> > > us
> > > > use the enable flag from ignite-core for ignite-cache without the
> > > > additional flag.
> > > >
> > > > @Singleton
> > > > public class IgniteConfigurationFactoryInterceptor implements
> > > > BeanCreatedEventListener<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> {
> > > > @Override
> > > > public IgniteConfiguration
> > > > onCreated(BeanCreatedEvent<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> event) {
> > > > IgniteConfiguration configuration = event.getBean();
> > > > configuration.setIgniteInstanceName("instance-a");
> > > > return configuration;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Michael,
> > > > >
> > > > > Looks terrific! I went ahead and grouped the configuration samples
> > by a
> > > > > client type:
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > >
> > > > > As you see, the "Ignite Thin Client" section is blank for now.
> Would
> > > you
> > > > > mind filling it with configuration options following the format
> taken
> > > for
> > > > > the thick client?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ping me here once you're ready to review the API and implementation
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > ignite-caching module.
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:16 PM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Here is a sample project I threw together and I've also updated
> the
> > > > wiki
> > > > > > just a bit. working on updating the documentation on the
> micronaut
> > > end.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config. splitting it into
> > two
> > > > > > modules
> > > > > > > seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't really like
> > the
> > > > > random
> > > > > > > boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your provider:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > kind of strange that there are not getters for the
> > > > > > > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to verify
> that
> > > the
> > > > > > > correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've written.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > static ip finder
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
> > > > "localhost:1800",
> > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "
> > > > 127.0.0.1:47500
> > > > > ",
> > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "
> > > > 127.0.0.1:47501
> > > > > ",
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > kubernetties ip finder
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
> > > > > "localhost:1800",
> > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> > > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace":
> > "HelloWorld"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Michael,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the ignite-cache
> > module
> > > in
> > > > > two
> > > > > > >> (one for a thick-client based connection and the other for
> thin
> > > > client
> > > > > > >> connections), and would try to avoid this route if possible.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut developers can
> > create
> > > a
> > > > > > >> generic
> > > > > > >> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite connectivity
> > > methods,
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > >> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache implementation can
> > > > decide
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > >> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one, depends
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> of a client you started with our auto-configuration feature).
> > > Let’s
> > > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > > >> all the existing issues here and jump on another call to
> > finalize
> > > a
> > > > > > >> solution if needed.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Michael,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went ahead and
> > > pushed
> > > > > some
> > > > > > >> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those changes
> > do
> > > > some
> > > > > > >> minor
> > > > > > >> > tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration class and
> > add
> > > > > > Static
> > > > > > >> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > class.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > >> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think we'll
> > figure
> > > > how
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > modify the test on the call today.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure IgniteCaches via
> > the
> > > > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > >> > configuration. If an application needs to create any caches,
> > it
> > > > can
> > > > > do
> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > >> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > -
> > > > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that these
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > >> > provided through a factory.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > @Bean
> > > > > > >> > @Named("default")
> > > > > > >> > @Primary
> > > > > > >> > public IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > >> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration configuration,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration> cacheConfigurations,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration>
> executorConfigurations,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > Optional<CollisionSpi>
> > > > > > >> collisionSpi,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > Collection<FailoverSpi>
> > > > > > >> failoverSpis,
> > > > > > >> >
> @ConsistencyId
> > > > > > >> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
> > > > > > >> >
> > @IgniteLifecycle
> > > > > > >> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > >
> > configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
> > > > > > >> CacheConfiguration[0]))
> > > > > > >> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new
> > > > > PluginProvider[0]))
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
> > > > > > >> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
> > > > > > >> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new
> > > FailoverSpi[0]))
> > > > > > >> > .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
> > > > > > >> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
> > > > > > >> > .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
> > > > > > >> > .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new
> > > > > > LifecycleBean[0]))
> > > > > > >> > .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
> > > > > > >> > return configuration;
> > > > > > >> > }
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks like now.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > ignite:
> > > > > > >> > enabled: true
> > > > > > >> > comunication-spi:
> > > > > > >> > local-port: 5555
> > > > > > >> > cache-configurations:
> > > > > > >> > - accounts:
> > > > > > >> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
> > > > > > >> > key-type: String
> > > > > > >> > - books:
> > > > > > >> > table-name: BOOKS
> > > > > > >> > key-type: String
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its
> static
> > > and
> > > > > > nested
> > > > > > >> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not work
> in
> > > this
> > > > > > >> case. So
> > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the
> environment.
> > > > This
> > > > > > is a
> > > > > > >> > working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it would
> > have
> > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum working
> > setup
> > > > and
> > > > > > >> then
> > > > > > >> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "dataStorageConfiguration",
> > > > excludes =
> > > > > > >> "dataRegionConfigurations")
> > > > > > >> > final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration =
> new
> > > > > > >> DataStorageConfiguration();
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
> > > > > > >> > public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
> > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration = new
> > > > > > >> DataRegionConfiguration();
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > public DataRegionConfiguration
> > getDataRegionConfiguration()
> > > {
> > > > > > >> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
> > > > > > >> > }
> > > > > > >> > }
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Dennis,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it
> because
> > > > that
> > > > > > >> didn't
> > > > > > >> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
> > > > > > >> ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > is a final class so that can't be extended from. This PR is
> > > > starting
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the
> > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > >> The
> > > > > > >> > other thing I did was add a flag for the associated cache to
> > use
> > > > > > >> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see If I
> > can
> > > > > work
> > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > >> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can
> > > provide
> > > > > your
> > > > > > >> own
> > > > > > >> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > [image: image.png]
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <
> > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Michael,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Thanks, for verifying.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get
> the
> > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead
> > > they
> > > > > are
> > > > > > >> just
> > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default
> > > configuration
> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> its
> > > > > > >> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast
> core:
> > > > > > >> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > >> >
> > > master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
> > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their
> > > Micronaut's
> > > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following
> > configuration
> > > > > > >> > parameteres:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the
> parent
> > > > > > >> ClientConfig
> > > > > > >> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes =
> > > {"properties",
> > > > > > >> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
> > > > > > >> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig,
> SocketOptions
> > > > > > >> properties
> > > > > > >> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be
> > > > > inherited
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > > manually.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and
> > > here
> > > > > is a
> > > > > > >> > final list of configuration properties:
> > > > > > >> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's
> > start
> > > > > with
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > thin client. It's much simpler.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > yea, will need to
> > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because
> > there
> > > > is
> > > > > no
> > > > > > >> way
> > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite
> > worked
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > >> > > yet.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me
> know
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > > >> need
> > > > > > >> > me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > -
> > > > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > Dennis,
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > >
> > > main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > > >> > java
> > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > test cases:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > > > >> >
> test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get
> > the
> > > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead
> > > they
> > > > > are
> > > > > > >> just
> > > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
> > > > > > >> ConfigurationProperty
> > > > > > >> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the
> > > > > > >> documentation is
> > > > > > >> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't
> think
> > > this
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> > work
> > > > > > >> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest
> > @EachProperty
> > > > in
> > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > single
> > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how
> > stuff
> > > > gets
> > > > > > >> > resolved
> > > > > > >> > > (
> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938
> > > > > ).
> > > > > > >> so
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a
> > first
> > > > > > working
> > > > > > >> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea,
> > > will
> > > > > need
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because
> > there
> > > > is
> > > > > no
> > > > > > >> way
> > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite
> > worked
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > >> > > yet.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the
> confluence.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <
> > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Michael,
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration
> > > specificities.
> > > > > What
> > > > > > >> > > confused
> > > > > > >> > > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration
> in
> > > > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > >> > looks
> > > > > > >> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former
> > > > automates
> > > > > a
> > > > > > >> lot
> > > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our
> default
> > > > Spring
> > > > > > >> Boot
> > > > > > >> > > > configuration looks
> > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
> > > > > > >> > modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
> > > > > > >> >
> > main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
> > > > > > >> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any
> > possible
> > > > > > >> property
> > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > >> > > an
> > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
> > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > >> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > >> > > > >.
> > > > > > >> > > > The upside of the reflection.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would
> > > > suggest.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that
> > > > *extends*
> > > > > > >> > Ignite's
> > > > > > >> > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > >> > ClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > >> > > > >.
> > > > > > >> > > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
> > > > > > >> > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how
> > you
> > > > > were
> > > > > > >> doing
> > > > > > >> > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > before I joined the review)
> > > > > > >> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of
> > > > custom
> > > > > > >> > > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
> > > > > > >> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
> > > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > > > >> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
> > > > > > >> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we
> > > support
> > > > > > >> another
> > > > > > >> > > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean
> is
> > > > > created
> > > > > > >> > > > programmatically in the source code and the integration
> > uses
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >> bean
> > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > >> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
> > > > > > >> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to
> set
> > > the
> > > > > > >> > properties
> > > > > > >> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the
> > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >> bean
> > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > >> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
> > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
> > > > > > >> > programmatically
> > > > > > >> > > > >and
> > > > > > >> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous
> > > > > configuration
> > > > > > >> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
> > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > .
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most
> > > > > frequently
> > > > > > >> used
> > > > > > >> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
> > > > > > >> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems
> > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's
> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > >> (so
> > > > > > >> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive
> types).
> > > > Based
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> my
> > > > > > >> > > > experience, I would add the following settings of custom
> > > > > > >> non-primitive
> > > > > > >> > > > types:
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
> > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
> > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be
> done
> > > > > easily,
> > > > > > >> > right,
> > > > > > >> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the
> > > > > beginning,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> > would
> > > > > > >> > > > only
> > > > > > >> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
> > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > > > > > >> > spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
> > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
> > > > > > >> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
> > > > > > >> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
> > > > > > >> > > > >via
> > > > > > >> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > > >> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > >
> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > >> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > including
> > > > > > >> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
> > > > > > >> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
> > > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > > > > > >> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm
> > > assuming
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >> we
> > > > > > >> > can
> > > > > > >> > > > do
> > > > > > >> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through
> > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > > > >> > > > (include)
> > > > > > >> > > > or inheritence.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported
> by
> > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way
> to
> > > > create
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to
> > > > > initialize
> > > > > > >> an
> > > > > > >> > > > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing
> > > > > something.
> > > > > > >> > > > -
> > > > > > >> > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > > >> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and
> > > > network
> > > > > > >> options
> > > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement
> > something
> > > > > > >> similar to
> > > > > > >> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> > > > > > >> > > > > [2]
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > Let me know what you think.
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > >> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through
> > > > experimentation.
> > > > > > You
> > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > >> > > ask
> > > > > > >> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> > > > > > >> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html.
> > look
> > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty
> > > > > > >> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through
> > the
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > >> > > > existing
> > > > > > >> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration
> > items
> > > > are
> > > > > > >> setup.
> > > > > > >> > > > There
> > > > > > >> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which
> > have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > >> > pretty
> > > > > > >> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these
> > > > > > annotations
> > > > > > >> > work
> > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > practice.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible
> quantity
> > of
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > instances
> > > > > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to
> > > auto-configure a
> > > > > > >> single
> > > > > > >> > > > > instance
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the
> > > configuration
> > > > > > >> matters
> > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can
> > suggest.
> > > > > Could
> > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > >> > > > > > recommend
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut
> > > > configuration
> > > > > > >> > > specifies
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source
> code)?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > >> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer
> the
> > > > > > >> > > communicationSpi,
> > > > > > >> > > > > so
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look
> > pretty
> > > > > much
> > > > > > >> like
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier
> > with
> > > > > just
> > > > > > >> > > allowing
> > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > single
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot
> > > > > > >> configuration:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having
> that
> > as
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > default
> > > > > > >> > > > use
> > > > > > >> > > > > > case
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will
> work
> > > as
> > > > > > >> follows:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable true
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - ...
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable: false
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the
> > presence
> > > > of
> > > > > > >> > something
> > > > > > >> > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > >> dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the
> primary
> > > > bean
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> used
> > > > > > >> > > by
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache
> with
> > > > > anything
> > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if
> > the
> > > > > > >> > configuration
> > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced
> > that
> > > we
> > > > > > >> > shouldn't
> > > > > > >> > > > > bother
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite
> > > instances.
> > > > > As I
> > > > > > >> said
> > > > > > >> > > > > before,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore,
> > > > Micronout
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > designed
> > > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I
> > can
> > > > > hardly
> > > > > > >> > think
> > > > > > >> > > > of a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would
> need
> > > to
> > > > > boot
> > > > > > >> up
> > > > > > >> > > > several
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a
> > single
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > instance
> > > > > > >> > > > > > per
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this?
> > It
> > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > significantly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of
> > > > integration.
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > >> > > anybody
> > > > > > >> > > > > > needs
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can
> > instantiate
> > > > them
> > > > > > >> > > manually.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > By default the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the
> > > thin-client
> > > > > > >> > > DynamicCache
> > > > > > >> > > > > if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I
> would
> > > > simply
> > > > > > >> > disallow
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance
> (let
> > > it
> > > > > be a
> > > > > > >> > thick
> > > > > > >> > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > thin
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is
> > already
> > > > > > >> started,
> > > > > > >> > > then
> > > > > > >> > > > > > throw
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin
> > > client
> > > > > (and
> > > > > > >> vice
> > > > > > >> > > > > versa).
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > As
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to
> > > > > > Micronaut,
> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >> > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > recommend
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed
> > in
> > > a
> > > > > > >> > serverless
> > > > > > >> > > > > > function
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster
> > faster),
> > > > > while
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > micro-services
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring
> bean
> > > > > > definition
> > > > > > >> > was
> > > > > > >> > > > > mainly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are
> > the
> > > > > most
> > > > > > >> > > relevant.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important
> point
> > > > about
> > > > > > >> > > Micronaut.
> > > > > > >> > > > > Let
> > > > > > >> > > > > > me
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
> > > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration
> igniteConfiguration
> > =
> > > > new
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi
> > bean
> > > > > below
> > > > > > >> > > without
> > > > > > >> > > > > > having
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration?
> > Are
> > > > you
> > > > > > >> > getting a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the
> SPI}
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael
> > Pollind <
> > > > > > >> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly
> threw
> > > > > > together
> > > > > > >> > along
> > > > > > >> > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might
> > get a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > >> > > > > complicated
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > but I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael
> > > Pollind <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring
> > bean
> > > > > > >> definition
> > > > > > >> > > was
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > mainly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields
> are
> > > the
> > > > > most
> > > > > > >> > > > relevant.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the
> > configuration
> > > > > might
> > > > > > >> get a
> > > > > > >> > > > > little
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is
> > use
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and
> you
> > > can
> > > > > > pass
> > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this
> as
> > > > > > follows:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration
> > > igniteConfiguration =
> > > > > new
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
> > > "communicationSpi")
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi
> communicationSpi
> > =
> > > > new
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael
> > > Pollind
> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the
> > > object
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > declared. I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple
> > > > ConfigurationBuilders
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > >> i'm
> > > > > > >> > > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > mistaken
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need
> to
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > name
> > > > > > >> > > > > > since
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration
> > > under
> > > > > > >> > > > EachProperty.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > The
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that
> bean
> > > and
> > > > > also
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > same
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part
> will
> > > just
> > > > > use
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > primary
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > bean
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one
> > cache
> > > > > > >> instance
> > > > > > >> > > > active
> > > > > > >> > > > > > at a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the
> > primary
> > > > > bean
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > used
> > > > > > >> > > > by
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache
> > with
> > > > > > anything
> > > > > > >> > but
> > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other
> if
> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > configuration
> > > > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We
> can
> > > > only
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> one
> > > > > > >> > > > > > instance
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that
> > > works
> > > > > > >> again.
> > > > > > >> > By
> > > > > > >> > > > > > default
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the
> > > > thin-client
> > > > > > >> > > > DynamicCache
> > > > > > >> > > > > > if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis
> > Magda <
> > > > > > >> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work
> > with
> > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single
> > instance
> > > > of
> > > > > a
> > > > > > >> thick
> > > > > > >> > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > thin
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are
> multi-threaded
> > > and
> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> > > utilize
> > > > > > >> > > > > all
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > CPUs
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to
> > > have
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > ability
> > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > configure
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far
> as
> > I
> > > > > > >> understand,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
> > > > > > >> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > property,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for
> > > > IgniteConfiguration?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those
> > > defaults
> > > > > > are?
> > > > > > >> By
> > > > > > >> > > > > looking
> > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
> > > > > > >> > > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I
> see
> > > that
> > > > > > >> > Micronaut
> > > > > > >> > > > > could
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration
> > and
> > > > > > >> prepared
> > > > > > >> > > these
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properties
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am
> > > configuring
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> thin
> > > > > > >> > > > > client
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can
> override
> > > > some
> > > > > > >> > settings
> > > > > > >> > > > such
> > > > > > >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or
> "enablePartitionAwareness".
> > > Does
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > >> > sound
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > accurate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration,
> I
> > > > would
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > >> > swap
> > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > "path"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
> > > > > > >> > > IgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Then
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the
> IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > defaults
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > allow a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
> > > > > > >> discoverySPI.ipFinder
> > > > > > >> > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > memory
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
> > > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > defaults
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael
> > > > Pollind <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work
> > with
> > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > >> > > > > instances.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I
> > > > believe
> > > > > I
> > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > >> > > > > > originally
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the
> default
> > > > > ignite
> > > > > > >> > > instance
> > > > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > found
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the
> > configuration.
> > > > So
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > >> > > > defaults
> > > > > > >> > > > > > are
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those
> > factory
> > > > > items
> > > > > > >> can't
> > > > > > >> > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > covered
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
> > > > > > >> > @ConfigurationProperty
> > > > > > >> > > > can
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are
> > ways
> > > to
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> > > > multiple
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > factories
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily
> gets
> > > > > > >> overwhelming.
> > > > > > >> > > In
> > > > > > >> > > > > > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably
> be
> > > > more
> > > > > > >> ideal
> > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that
> I
> > > > > wouldn't
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> > > able
> > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > cover
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients:
> > > > > default:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > address:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
> > 127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800
> "
> > > > > - "
> > > > > > >> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > "
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot
> > > > > > >> documentation:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis
> > > Magda <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the
> > wiki
> > > > > page.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration
> > > wiki
> > > > > > >> section
> > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the
> > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > >> > configuration/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the
> > > following
> > > > > > >> changes:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the
> > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
> > > > > > >> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > developers
> > > > > > >> > > > > > might
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the
> > integration
> > > > > scope
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the
> "name"
> > > and
> > > > > > >> "path".
> > > > > > >> > I
> > > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one
> that
> > > > > > >> instantiates
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration.
> > > > If
> > > > > we
> > > > > > >> do
> > > > > > >> > > that,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > then
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > Spring
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Boot
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with
> > > > Micronaut.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is
> > > > > feasible,
> > > > > > >> > then I
> > > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > rework
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration
> > > > > similarly,
> > > > > > >> > taking
> > > > > > >> > > > our
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the
> > current
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > >> > configuration/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only
> > > > rename
> > > > > > >> > > > > "configuration"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field
> since
> > > you
> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> pass
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following
> the
> > > > format
> > > > > > >> below:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled:
> true
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM
> Michael
> > > > > > Pollind <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those
> > > > methods
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > >> > > > wrapped
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've
> > > > listed
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > relevant
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > sections
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation
> > along
> > > > > with
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > methods
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working
> > > from.
> > > > > > >> Hopefully
> > > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > helps.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig
> > > annotation
> > > > > but
> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the
> key.
> > > By
> > > > > > >> default
> > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > >> > > > uses
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > >> > interceptor/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on
> > > > sunday:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could
> > > expand
> > > > on
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > how
> > > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and
> > > > issue a
> > > > > > >> put if
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if
> > the
> > > > > > return
> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >> > > null
> > > > > > >> > > > > > else
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a
> mistake
> > > in
> > > > my
> > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > >> > > > > because I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to
> investigate
> > > > that
> > > > > > >> closer
> > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > write
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just
> > be
> > > > > > removed
> > > > > > >> by
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > key.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM
> > Saikat
> > > > > > Maitra <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object
> you
> > > are
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > >> > > > > @CachePut,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate
> > > > > > annotations
> > > > > > >> > and I
> > > > > > >> > > > was
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation
> then
> > > > what
> > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and
> how
> > > > those
> > > > > > >> > > operations
> > > > > > >> > > > > are
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call
> this
> > > > below
> > > > > > >> method
> > > > > > >> > > > then
> > > > > > >> > > > > > how
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
> > > > > > >> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
> > > > > > >> > 0
> > > > > > >> > > })
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM
> > > Michael
> > > > > > >> Pollind
> > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations
> > do
> > > > you
> > > > > > mean
> > > > > > >> > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is
> > split
> > > > into
> > > > > > >> > multiple
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > modules.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan
> > was
> > > to
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > >> > have
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-data
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get
> working
> > > > > > correctly
> > > > > > >> > but
> > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > basic
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to
> verify
> > > the
> > > > > API
> > > > > > >> > > described
> > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work
> > best.
> > > At
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > moment
> > > > > > >> > > > I'm
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the
> thin-cache
> > > and
> > > > > how
> > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > fit
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the
> added
> > > > > > complexity
> > > > > > >> > but
> > > > > > >> > > > I'm
> > > > > > >> > > > > > sure
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as
> a
> > > > > separate
> > > > > > >> > module
> > > > > > >> > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project
> > > where
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > >> > > module
> > > > > > >> > > > > also
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > has a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache
> > and
> > > > > > >> SyncCache
> > > > > > >> > > are
> > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > two
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There
> > are
> > > > two
> > > > > > >> ways to
> > > > > > >> > > > > define
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans
> for
> > > > > > AsyncCache
> > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > SyncCache
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager
> that
> > > > will
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > name
> > > > > > >> > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache
> > > used.
> > > > In
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > documentation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of
> > caches
> > > > you
> > > > > > >> want
> > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> -
> > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Could you share the full path to the branch? Don't want to pick a wrong one
accidentally.
-
Denis
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 2:47 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> so that clears up the extra flag for micronaut-cache. just need to
> intercept the default IgniteConfiguration bean and update the
> configuration. if you pull my latest changes from the rework branch you can
> look at the docs for that micronaut module. `./gradlew docs`. Finalizing
> the docs should be the last part of this. The configuration from my
> perspective seems pretty much there. Is there anything else that is
> missing?
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:31 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > 👍 Nice catch!
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > One thing that just occurred to me for the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > you
> > > can actually just intercept the bean when it's created. This should let
> > us
> > > use the enable flag from ignite-core for ignite-cache without the
> > > additional flag.
> > >
> > > @Singleton
> > > public class IgniteConfigurationFactoryInterceptor implements
> > > BeanCreatedEventListener<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> {
> > > @Override
> > > public IgniteConfiguration
> > > onCreated(BeanCreatedEvent<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> event) {
> > > IgniteConfiguration configuration = event.getBean();
> > > configuration.setIgniteInstanceName("instance-a");
> > > return configuration;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael,
> > > >
> > > > Looks terrific! I went ahead and grouped the configuration samples
> by a
> > > > client type:
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > >
> > > > As you see, the "Ignite Thin Client" section is blank for now. Would
> > you
> > > > mind filling it with configuration options following the format taken
> > for
> > > > the thick client?
> > > >
> > > > Ping me here once you're ready to review the API and implementation
> of
> > > the
> > > > ignite-caching module.
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:16 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Here is a sample project I threw together and I've also updated the
> > > wiki
> > > > > just a bit. working on updating the documentation on the micronaut
> > end.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config. splitting it into
> two
> > > > > modules
> > > > > > seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't really like
> the
> > > > random
> > > > > > boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your provider:
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > kind of strange that there are not getters for the
> > > > > > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to verify that
> > the
> > > > > > correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've written.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > static ip finder
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
> > > "localhost:1800",
> > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "
> > > 127.0.0.1:47500
> > > > ",
> > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "
> > > 127.0.0.1:47501
> > > > ",
> > > > > >
> > > > > > kubernetties ip finder
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
> > > > "localhost:1800",
> > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> > > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace":
> "HelloWorld"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Michael,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the ignite-cache
> module
> > in
> > > > two
> > > > > >> (one for a thick-client based connection and the other for thin
> > > client
> > > > > >> connections), and would try to avoid this route if possible.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut developers can
> create
> > a
> > > > > >> generic
> > > > > >> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite connectivity
> > methods,
> > > > > which
> > > > > >> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache implementation can
> > > decide
> > > > > what
> > > > > >> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one, depends
> on
> > > the
> > > > > type
> > > > > >> of a client you started with our auto-configuration feature).
> > Let’s
> > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > >> all the existing issues here and jump on another call to
> finalize
> > a
> > > > > >> solution if needed.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Michael,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went ahead and
> > pushed
> > > > some
> > > > > >> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those changes
> do
> > > some
> > > > > >> minor
> > > > > >> > tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration class and
> add
> > > > > Static
> > > > > >> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > class.
> > > > > The
> > > > > >> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think we'll
> figure
> > > how
> > > > to
> > > > > >> > modify the test on the call today.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure IgniteCaches via
> the
> > > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > >> > configuration. If an application needs to create any caches,
> it
> > > can
> > > > do
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > -
> > > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that these
> can
> > > be
> > > > > >> > provided through a factory.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > @Bean
> > > > > >> > @Named("default")
> > > > > >> > @Primary
> > > > > >> > public IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > >> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration configuration,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration> cacheConfigurations,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration> executorConfigurations,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > Optional<CollisionSpi>
> > > > > >> collisionSpi,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > Collection<FailoverSpi>
> > > > > >> failoverSpis,
> > > > > >> > @ConsistencyId
> > > > > >> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
> > > > > >> >
> @IgniteLifecycle
> > > > > >> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
> > > > > >> >
> > > > >
> configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
> > > > > >> CacheConfiguration[0]))
> > > > > >> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new
> > > > PluginProvider[0]))
> > > > > >> >
> > > .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
> > > > > >> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
> > > > > >> >
> > > > .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
> > > > > >> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new
> > FailoverSpi[0]))
> > > > > >> > .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
> > > > > >> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
> > > > > >> > .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
> > > > > >> > .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new
> > > > > LifecycleBean[0]))
> > > > > >> > .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
> > > > > >> > return configuration;
> > > > > >> > }
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks like now.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > ignite:
> > > > > >> > enabled: true
> > > > > >> > comunication-spi:
> > > > > >> > local-port: 5555
> > > > > >> > cache-configurations:
> > > > > >> > - accounts:
> > > > > >> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
> > > > > >> > key-type: String
> > > > > >> > - books:
> > > > > >> > table-name: BOOKS
> > > > > >> > key-type: String
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its static
> > and
> > > > > nested
> > > > > >> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not work in
> > this
> > > > > >> case. So
> > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the environment.
> > > This
> > > > > is a
> > > > > >> > working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it would
> have
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > >> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
> > > > > >> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum working
> setup
> > > and
> > > > > >> then
> > > > > >> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "dataStorageConfiguration",
> > > excludes =
> > > > > >> "dataRegionConfigurations")
> > > > > >> > final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration = new
> > > > > >> DataStorageConfiguration();
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
> > > > > >> > public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
> > > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration = new
> > > > > >> DataRegionConfiguration();
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > public DataRegionConfiguration
> getDataRegionConfiguration()
> > {
> > > > > >> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
> > > > > >> > }
> > > > > >> > }
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Dennis,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it because
> > > that
> > > > > >> didn't
> > > > > >> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
> > > > > >> ClientConfiguration
> > > > > >> > is a final class so that can't be extended from. This PR is
> > > starting
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the
> > > > documentation.
> > > > > >> The
> > > > > >> > other thing I did was add a flag for the associated cache to
> use
> > > > > >> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see If I
> can
> > > > work
> > > > > >> out
> > > > > >> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can
> > provide
> > > > your
> > > > > >> own
> > > > > >> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > [image: image.png]
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Michael,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thanks, for verifying.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead
> > they
> > > > are
> > > > > >> just
> > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default
> > configuration
> > > > for
> > > > > >> its
> > > > > >> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast core:
> > > > > >> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > >> >
> > master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
> > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their
> > Micronaut's
> > > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following
> configuration
> > > > > >> > parameteres:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the parent
> > > > > >> ClientConfig
> > > > > >> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes =
> > {"properties",
> > > > > >> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
> > > > > >> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig, SocketOptions
> > > > > >> properties
> > > > > >> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be
> > > > inherited
> > > > > as
> > > > > >> > above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > manually.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and
> > here
> > > > is a
> > > > > >> > final list of configuration properties:
> > > > > >> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's
> start
> > > > with
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > thin client. It's much simpler.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > yea, will need to
> > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because
> there
> > > is
> > > > no
> > > > > >> way
> > > > > >> > a
> > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite
> worked
> > > > that
> > > > > >> out
> > > > > >> > > yet.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me know
> if
> > > you
> > > > > >> need
> > > > > >> > me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > -
> > > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Dennis,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > > >> >
> > > > >
> > main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > >> > java
> > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > test cases:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > > >> > test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get
> the
> > > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead
> > they
> > > > are
> > > > > >> just
> > > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
> > > > > >> ConfigurationProperty
> > > > > >> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the
> > > > > >> documentation is
> > > > > >> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think
> > this
> > > > > will
> > > > > >> > work
> > > > > >> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest
> @EachProperty
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > > >> > single
> > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how
> stuff
> > > gets
> > > > > >> > resolved
> > > > > >> > > (
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938
> > > > ).
> > > > > >> so
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a
> first
> > > > > working
> > > > > >> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea,
> > will
> > > > need
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because
> there
> > > is
> > > > no
> > > > > >> way
> > > > > >> > a
> > > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite
> worked
> > > > that
> > > > > >> out
> > > > > >> > > yet.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <
> > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > Michael,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration
> > specificities.
> > > > What
> > > > > >> > > confused
> > > > > >> > > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration in
> > > > > Micronaut
> > > > > >> > looks
> > > > > >> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former
> > > automates
> > > > a
> > > > > >> lot
> > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > >> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default
> > > Spring
> > > > > >> Boot
> > > > > >> > > > configuration looks
> > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
> > > > > >> > modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
> > > > > >> >
> main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
> > > > > >> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any
> possible
> > > > > >> property
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > an
> > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
> > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > >> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > >> > > > >.
> > > > > >> > > > The upside of the reflection.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would
> > > suggest.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that
> > > *extends*
> > > > > >> > Ignite's
> > > > > >> > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > >> > ClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > >> > > > >.
> > > > > >> > > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
> > > > > >> > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how
> you
> > > > were
> > > > > >> doing
> > > > > >> > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > before I joined the review)
> > > > > >> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of
> > > custom
> > > > > >> > > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
> > > > > >> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
> > > > > >> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > > >> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
> > > > > >> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we
> > support
> > > > > >> another
> > > > > >> > > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is
> > > > created
> > > > > >> > > > programmatically in the source code and the integration
> uses
> > > > that
> > > > > >> bean
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
> > > > > >> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set
> > the
> > > > > >> > properties
> > > > > >> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the
> > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > >> bean
> > > > > >> > is
> > > > > >> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
> > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
> > > > > >> > programmatically
> > > > > >> > > > >and
> > > > > >> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous
> > > > configuration
> > > > > >> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
> > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > .
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most
> > > > frequently
> > > > > >> used
> > > > > >> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
> > > > > >> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems
> > > > > reasonable
> > > > > >> if
> > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's
> > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > >> (so
> > > > > >> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types).
> > > Based
> > > > > on
> > > > > >> my
> > > > > >> > > > experience, I would add the following settings of custom
> > > > > >> non-primitive
> > > > > >> > > > types:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
> > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
> > > > > >> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be done
> > > > easily,
> > > > > >> > right,
> > > > > >> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the
> > > > beginning,
> > > > > I
> > > > > >> > would
> > > > > >> > > > only
> > > > > >> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
> > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > > > > >> > spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
> > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
> > > > > >> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
> > > > > >> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
> > > > > >> > > > >via
> > > > > >> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > >> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > >> >
> > > >
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > >> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > including
> > > > > >> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
> > > > > >> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
> > > > > >> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > > > > >> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm
> > assuming
> > > > that
> > > > > >> we
> > > > > >> > can
> > > > > >> > > > do
> > > > > >> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through
> > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > > >> > > > (include)
> > > > > >> > > > or inheritence.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
> > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to
> > > create
> > > > > an
> > > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to
> > > > initialize
> > > > > >> an
> > > > > >> > > > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing
> > > > something.
> > > > > >> > > > -
> > > > > >> > > > Denis
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > >> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and
> > > network
> > > > > >> options
> > > > > >> > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement
> something
> > > > > >> similar to
> > > > > >> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> > > > > >> > > > > [2]
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Let me know what you think.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > >> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through
> > > experimentation.
> > > > > You
> > > > > >> can
> > > > > >> > > ask
> > > > > >> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> > > > > >> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> > > > > >> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> > > > > >> > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html.
> look
> > > for
> > > > > >> > > > EachProperty
> > > > > >> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through
> the
> > > > > current
> > > > > >> > > > existing
> > > > > >> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration
> items
> > > are
> > > > > >> setup.
> > > > > >> > > > There
> > > > > >> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which
> have
> > > > been
> > > > > >> > pretty
> > > > > >> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these
> > > > > annotations
> > > > > >> > work
> > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > practice.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity
> of
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > instances
> > > > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to
> > auto-configure a
> > > > > >> single
> > > > > >> > > > > instance
> > > > > >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the
> > configuration
> > > > > >> matters
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can
> suggest.
> > > > Could
> > > > > >> you
> > > > > >> > > > > > recommend
> > > > > >> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut
> > > configuration
> > > > > >> > > specifies
> > > > > >> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
> > > > > >> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the
> > > > > >> > > communicationSpi,
> > > > > >> > > > > so
> > > > > >> > > > > > > you
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look
> pretty
> > > > much
> > > > > >> like
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier
> with
> > > > just
> > > > > >> > > allowing
> > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > single
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot
> > > > > >> configuration:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that
> as
> > > the
> > > > > >> > default
> > > > > >> > > > use
> > > > > >> > > > > > case
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work
> > as
> > > > > >> follows:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable true
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > - ...
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > enable: false
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the
> presence
> > > of
> > > > > >> > something
> > > > > >> > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > >> dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary
> > > bean
> > > > is
> > > > > >> used
> > > > > >> > > by
> > > > > >> > > > > > > default
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with
> > > > anything
> > > > > >> but
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > default
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if
> the
> > > > > >> > configuration
> > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > present.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced
> that
> > we
> > > > > >> > shouldn't
> > > > > >> > > > > bother
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite
> > instances.
> > > > As I
> > > > > >> said
> > > > > >> > > > > before,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore,
> > > Micronout
> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > designed
> > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I
> can
> > > > hardly
> > > > > >> > think
> > > > > >> > > > of a
> > > > > >> > > > > > use
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need
> > to
> > > > boot
> > > > > >> up
> > > > > >> > > > several
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a
> single
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > instance
> > > > > >> > > > > > per
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this?
> It
> > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > significantly
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of
> > > integration.
> > > > > If
> > > > > >> > > anybody
> > > > > >> > > > > > needs
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can
> instantiate
> > > them
> > > > > >> > > manually.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > By default the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the
> > thin-client
> > > > > >> > > DynamicCache
> > > > > >> > > > > if
> > > > > >> > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would
> > > simply
> > > > > >> > disallow
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let
> > it
> > > > be a
> > > > > >> > thick
> > > > > >> > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > thin
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is
> already
> > > > > >> started,
> > > > > >> > > then
> > > > > >> > > > > > throw
> > > > > >> > > > > > > an
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin
> > client
> > > > (and
> > > > > >> vice
> > > > > >> > > > > versa).
> > > > > >> > > > > > > As
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to
> > > > > Micronaut,
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >> > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > recommend
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed
> in
> > a
> > > > > >> > serverless
> > > > > >> > > > > > function
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster
> faster),
> > > > while
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > micro-services
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean
> > > > > definition
> > > > > >> > was
> > > > > >> > > > > mainly
> > > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are
> the
> > > > most
> > > > > >> > > relevant.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point
> > > about
> > > > > >> > > Micronaut.
> > > > > >> > > > > Let
> > > > > >> > > > > > me
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
> > > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration
> =
> > > new
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi
> bean
> > > > below
> > > > > >> > > without
> > > > > >> > > > > > having
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration?
> Are
> > > you
> > > > > >> > getting a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael
> Pollind <
> > > > > >> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw
> > > > > together
> > > > > >> > along
> > > > > >> > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might
> get a
> > > > > little
> > > > > >> > > > > complicated
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > but I
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael
> > Pollind <
> > > > > >> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring
> bean
> > > > > >> definition
> > > > > >> > > was
> > > > > >> > > > > > > mainly
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are
> > the
> > > > most
> > > > > >> > > > relevant.
> > > > > >> > > > > > Will
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the
> configuration
> > > > might
> > > > > >> get a
> > > > > >> > > > > little
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is
> use
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you
> > can
> > > > > pass
> > > > > >> > that
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as
> > > > > follows:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration
> > igniteConfiguration =
> > > > new
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
> > "communicationSpi")
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi
> =
> > > new
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael
> > Pollind
> > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the
> > object
> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > declared. I
> > > > > >> > > > > > > think
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple
> > > ConfigurationBuilders
> > > > > If
> > > > > >> i'm
> > > > > >> > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > mistaken
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to
> > > > provide
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > name
> > > > > >> > > > > > since
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration
> > under
> > > > > >> > > > EachProperty.
> > > > > >> > > > > > The
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > name is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean
> > and
> > > > also
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > same
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will
> > just
> > > > use
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > primary
> > > > > >> > > > > > > bean
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one
> cache
> > > > > >> instance
> > > > > >> > > > active
> > > > > >> > > > > > at a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > time.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the
> primary
> > > > bean
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > used
> > > > > >> > > > by
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache
> with
> > > > > anything
> > > > > >> > but
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if
> > the
> > > > > >> > > configuration
> > > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > present.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can
> > > only
> > > > > use
> > > > > >> one
> > > > > >> > > > > > instance
> > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that
> > works
> > > > > >> again.
> > > > > >> > By
> > > > > >> > > > > > default
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the
> > > thin-client
> > > > > >> > > > DynamicCache
> > > > > >> > > > > > if
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis
> Magda <
> > > > > >> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work
> with
> > > > > multiple
> > > > > >> > > > > instances.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single
> instance
> > > of
> > > > a
> > > > > >> thick
> > > > > >> > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > thin
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded
> > and
> > > > can
> > > > > >> > > utilize
> > > > > >> > > > > all
> > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > CPUs
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to
> > have
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > ability
> > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > configure
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as
> I
> > > > > >> understand,
> > > > > >> > > > > > Micronaut
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
> > > > > >> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > property,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for
> > > IgniteConfiguration?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those
> > defaults
> > > > > are?
> > > > > >> By
> > > > > >> > > > > looking
> > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
> > > > > >> > > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see
> > that
> > > > > >> > Micronaut
> > > > > >> > > > > could
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration
> and
> > > > > >> prepared
> > > > > >> > > these
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > properties
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am
> > configuring
> > > > the
> > > > > >> thin
> > > > > >> > > > > client
> > > > > >> > > > > > > in a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of
> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override
> > > some
> > > > > >> > settings
> > > > > >> > > > such
> > > > > >> > > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness".
> > Does
> > > > > this
> > > > > >> > sound
> > > > > >> > > > > > > accurate
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I
> > > would
> > > > > just
> > > > > >> > swap
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > "path"
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
> > > > > >> > > IgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > >> > > > > > Then
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > defaults
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > allow a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
> > > > > >> discoverySPI.ipFinder
> > > > > >> > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > memory
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
> > > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > > > defaults
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael
> > > Pollind <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work
> with
> > > > > multiple
> > > > > >> > > > > instances.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I
> > > believe
> > > > I
> > > > > >> was
> > > > > >> > > > > > originally
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default
> > > > ignite
> > > > > >> > > instance
> > > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > found
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the
> configuration.
> > > So
> > > > > what
> > > > > >> > > > defaults
> > > > > >> > > > > > are
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > set
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those
> factory
> > > > items
> > > > > >> can't
> > > > > >> > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > > covered
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
> > > > > >> > @ConfigurationProperty
> > > > > >> > > > can
> > > > > >> > > > > > > only
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are
> ways
> > to
> > > > > have
> > > > > >> > > > multiple
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > factories
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets
> > > > > >> overwhelming.
> > > > > >> > > In
> > > > > >> > > > > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be
> > > more
> > > > > >> ideal
> > > > > >> > in
> > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I
> > > > wouldn't
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > > able
> > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > cover
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients:
> > > > default:
> > > > > >> > > > > > address:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
> 127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800"
> > > > - "
> > > > > >> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
> > > > > >> > > > > > > "
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot
> > > > > >> documentation:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis
> > Magda <
> > > > > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the
> wiki
> > > > page.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration
> > wiki
> > > > > >> section
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > current
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the
> io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > >> > configuration/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the
> > following
> > > > > >> changes:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the
> > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
> > > > > >> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > it's
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > done
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is
> that
> > > the
> > > > > >> > > developers
> > > > > >> > > > > > might
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the
> integration
> > > > scope
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name"
> > and
> > > > > >> "path".
> > > > > >> > I
> > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that
> > > > > >> instantiates
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration.
> > > If
> > > > we
> > > > > >> do
> > > > > >> > > that,
> > > > > >> > > > > > then
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of
> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done
> for
> > > the
> > > > > >> Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > Spring
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Boot
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with
> > > Micronaut.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is
> > > > feasible,
> > > > > >> > then I
> > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > rework
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration
> > > > similarly,
> > > > > >> > taking
> > > > > >> > > > our
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the
> current
> > > > > version
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > >> > configuration/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only
> > > rename
> > > > > >> > > > > "configuration"
> > > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since
> > you
> > > > can
> > > > > >> pass
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the
> > > format
> > > > > >> below:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael
> > > > > Pollind <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those
> > > methods
> > > > > get
> > > > > >> > > > wrapped
> > > > > >> > > > > > > into a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've
> > > listed
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > relevant
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > sections
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation
> along
> > > > with
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > methods
> > > > > >> > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working
> > from.
> > > > > >> Hopefully
> > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > > > helps.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig
> > annotation
> > > > but
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key.
> > By
> > > > > >> default
> > > > > >> > it
> > > > > >> > > > uses
> > > > > >> > > > > > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > >> > interceptor/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on
> > > sunday:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could
> > expand
> > > on
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > how
> > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > > > could
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and
> > > issue a
> > > > > >> put if
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > value
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if
> the
> > > > > return
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > > null
> > > > > >> > > > > > else
> > > > > >> > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake
> > in
> > > my
> > > > > >> code
> > > > > >> > > > > because I
> > > > > >> > > > > > > use
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate
> > > that
> > > > > >> closer
> > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > write
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just
> be
> > > > > removed
> > > > > >> by
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > key.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM
> Saikat
> > > > > Maitra <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you
> > are
> > > > > using
> > > > > >> > > > > @CachePut,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate
> > > > > annotations
> > > > > >> > and I
> > > > > >> > > > was
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then
> > > what
> > > > > >> would
> > > > > >> > be
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > underlying
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how
> > > those
> > > > > >> > > operations
> > > > > >> > > > > are
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this
> > > below
> > > > > >> method
> > > > > >> > > > then
> > > > > >> > > > > > how
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
> > > > > >> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
> > > > > >> > 0
> > > > > >> > > })
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM
> > Michael
> > > > > >> Pollind
> > > > > >> > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations
> do
> > > you
> > > > > mean
> > > > > >> > this
> > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is
> split
> > > into
> > > > > >> > multiple
> > > > > >> > > > > > > modules.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan
> was
> > to
> > > > > also
> > > > > >> > have
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-data
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working
> > > > > correctly
> > > > > >> > but
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > basic
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify
> > the
> > > > API
> > > > > >> > > described
> > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work
> best.
> > At
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > moment
> > > > > >> > > > I'm
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache
> > and
> > > > how
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > fit
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added
> > > > > complexity
> > > > > >> > but
> > > > > >> > > > I'm
> > > > > >> > > > > > sure
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a
> > > > separate
> > > > > >> > module
> > > > > >> > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project
> > where
> > > > > this
> > > > > >> > > module
> > > > > >> > > > > also
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > has a
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache
> and
> > > > > >> SyncCache
> > > > > >> > > are
> > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > two
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There
> are
> > > two
> > > > > >> ways to
> > > > > >> > > > > define
> > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for
> > > > > AsyncCache
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > > SyncCache
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that
> > > will
> > > > > use
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > name
> > > > > >> > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache
> > used.
> > > In
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > documentation
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of
> caches
> > > you
> > > > > >> want
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> -
> > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
so that clears up the extra flag for micronaut-cache. just need to
intercept the default IgniteConfiguration bean and update the
configuration. if you pull my latest changes from the rework branch you can
look at the docs for that micronaut module. `./gradlew docs`. Finalizing
the docs should be the last part of this. The configuration from my
perspective seems pretty much there. Is there anything else that is
missing?
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:31 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> 👍 Nice catch!
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > One thing that just occurred to me for the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> you
> > can actually just intercept the bean when it's created. This should let
> us
> > use the enable flag from ignite-core for ignite-cache without the
> > additional flag.
> >
> > @Singleton
> > public class IgniteConfigurationFactoryInterceptor implements
> > BeanCreatedEventListener<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> {
> > @Override
> > public IgniteConfiguration
> > onCreated(BeanCreatedEvent<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> event) {
> > IgniteConfiguration configuration = event.getBean();
> > configuration.setIgniteInstanceName("instance-a");
> > return configuration;
> > }
> > }
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael,
> > >
> > > Looks terrific! I went ahead and grouped the configuration samples by a
> > > client type:
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > >
> > > As you see, the "Ignite Thin Client" section is blank for now. Would
> you
> > > mind filling it with configuration options following the format taken
> for
> > > the thick client?
> > >
> > > Ping me here once you're ready to review the API and implementation of
> > the
> > > ignite-caching module.
> > >
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:16 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here is a sample project I threw together and I've also updated the
> > wiki
> > > > just a bit. working on updating the documentation on the micronaut
> end.
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config. splitting it into two
> > > > modules
> > > > > seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't really like the
> > > random
> > > > > boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your provider:
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
> > > > >
> > > > > kind of strange that there are not getters for the
> > > > > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to verify that
> the
> > > > > correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've written.
> > > > >
> > > > > static ip finder
> > > > >
> > > > > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
> > "localhost:1800",
> > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "
> > 127.0.0.1:47500
> > > ",
> > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "
> > 127.0.0.1:47501
> > > ",
> > > > >
> > > > > kubernetties ip finder
> > > > >
> > > > > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
> > > "localhost:1800",
> > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> > > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace": "HelloWorld"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Michael,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the ignite-cache module
> in
> > > two
> > > > >> (one for a thick-client based connection and the other for thin
> > client
> > > > >> connections), and would try to avoid this route if possible.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut developers can create
> a
> > > > >> generic
> > > > >> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite connectivity
> methods,
> > > > which
> > > > >> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache implementation can
> > decide
> > > > what
> > > > >> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one, depends on
> > the
> > > > type
> > > > >> of a client you started with our auto-configuration feature).
> Let’s
> > > > >> discuss
> > > > >> all the existing issues here and jump on another call to finalize
> a
> > > > >> solution if needed.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Denis
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Michael,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went ahead and
> pushed
> > > some
> > > > >> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those changes do
> > some
> > > > >> minor
> > > > >> > tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration class and add
> > > > Static
> > > > >> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > class.
> > > > The
> > > > >> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think we'll figure
> > how
> > > to
> > > > >> > modify the test on the call today.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure IgniteCaches via the
> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > >> > configuration. If an application needs to create any caches, it
> > can
> > > do
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > -
> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that these can
> > be
> > > > >> > provided through a factory.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > @Bean
> > > > >> > @Named("default")
> > > > >> > @Primary
> > > > >> > public IgniteConfiguration
> > > > >> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration configuration,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration> cacheConfigurations,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration> executorConfigurations,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
> > > > >> >
> > > Optional<CollisionSpi>
> > > > >> collisionSpi,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
> > > > >> >
> > > Collection<FailoverSpi>
> > > > >> failoverSpis,
> > > > >> > @ConsistencyId
> > > > >> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
> > > > >> > @IgniteLifecycle
> > > > >> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
> > > > >> >
> > > > configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
> > > > >> CacheConfiguration[0]))
> > > > >> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new
> > > PluginProvider[0]))
> > > > >> >
> > .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
> > > > >> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
> > > > >> >
> > > .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
> > > > >> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new
> FailoverSpi[0]))
> > > > >> > .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
> > > > >> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
> > > > >> > .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
> > > > >> > .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new
> > > > LifecycleBean[0]))
> > > > >> > .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
> > > > >> > return configuration;
> > > > >> > }
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks like now.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > ignite:
> > > > >> > enabled: true
> > > > >> > comunication-spi:
> > > > >> > local-port: 5555
> > > > >> > cache-configurations:
> > > > >> > - accounts:
> > > > >> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
> > > > >> > key-type: String
> > > > >> > - books:
> > > > >> > table-name: BOOKS
> > > > >> > key-type: String
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its static
> and
> > > > nested
> > > > >> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not work in
> this
> > > > >> case. So
> > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the environment.
> > This
> > > > is a
> > > > >> > working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it would have
> > to
> > > be
> > > > >> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
> > > > >> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum working setup
> > and
> > > > >> then
> > > > >> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "dataStorageConfiguration",
> > excludes =
> > > > >> "dataRegionConfigurations")
> > > > >> > final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration = new
> > > > >> DataStorageConfiguration();
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
> > > > >> > public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
> > > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration = new
> > > > >> DataRegionConfiguration();
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > public DataRegionConfiguration getDataRegionConfiguration()
> {
> > > > >> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
> > > > >> > }
> > > > >> > }
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Dennis,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it because
> > that
> > > > >> didn't
> > > > >> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
> > > > >> ClientConfiguration
> > > > >> > is a final class so that can't be extended from. This PR is
> > starting
> > > > to
> > > > >> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the
> > > documentation.
> > > > >> The
> > > > >> > other thing I did was add a flag for the associated cache to use
> > > > >> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see If I can
> > > work
> > > > >> out
> > > > >> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can
> provide
> > > your
> > > > >> own
> > > > >> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > [image: image.png]
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Michael,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks, for verifying.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead
> they
> > > are
> > > > >> just
> > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default
> configuration
> > > for
> > > > >> its
> > > > >> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast core:
> > > > >> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > >> >
> master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
> > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their
> Micronaut's
> > > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following configuration
> > > > >> > parameteres:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the parent
> > > > >> ClientConfig
> > > > >> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes =
> {"properties",
> > > > >> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
> > > > >> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig, SocketOptions
> > > > >> properties
> > > > >> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be
> > > inherited
> > > > as
> > > > >> > above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > manually.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and
> here
> > > is a
> > > > >> > final list of configuration properties:
> > > > >> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's start
> > > with
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > thin client. It's much simpler.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > yea, will need to
> > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there
> > is
> > > no
> > > > >> way
> > > > >> > a
> > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked
> > > that
> > > > >> out
> > > > >> > > yet.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me know if
> > you
> > > > >> need
> > > > >> > me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > -
> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Dennis,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > >> >
> > > >
> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > >> > java
> > > > >> > > and
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > test cases:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > > >> > test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> > > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead
> they
> > > are
> > > > >> just
> > > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
> > > > >> ConfigurationProperty
> > > > >> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the
> > > > >> documentation is
> > > > >> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think
> this
> > > > will
> > > > >> > work
> > > > >> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest @EachProperty
> > in
> > > a
> > > > >> > single
> > > > >> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how stuff
> > gets
> > > > >> > resolved
> > > > >> > > (
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938
> > > ).
> > > > >> so
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a first
> > > > working
> > > > >> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea,
> will
> > > need
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there
> > is
> > > no
> > > > >> way
> > > > >> > a
> > > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked
> > > that
> > > > >> out
> > > > >> > > yet.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Michael,
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration
> specificities.
> > > What
> > > > >> > > confused
> > > > >> > > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration in
> > > > Micronaut
> > > > >> > looks
> > > > >> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former
> > automates
> > > a
> > > > >> lot
> > > > >> > > with
> > > > >> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default
> > Spring
> > > > >> Boot
> > > > >> > > > configuration looks
> > > > >> > > > <
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
> > > > >> > modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
> > > > >> > main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
> > > > >> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible
> > > > >> property
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > an
> > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
> > > > >> > > > <
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > >> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > >> > > > >.
> > > > >> > > > The upside of the reflection.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would
> > suggest.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that
> > *extends*
> > > > >> > Ignite's
> > > > >> > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > <
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > >> > ClientConfiguration.java
> > > > >> > > > >.
> > > > >> > > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
> > > > >> > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you
> > > were
> > > > >> doing
> > > > >> > > > that
> > > > >> > > > before I joined the review)
> > > > >> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of
> > custom
> > > > >> > > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
> > > > >> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
> > > > >> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > >> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
> > > > >> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we
> support
> > > > >> another
> > > > >> > > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is
> > > created
> > > > >> > > > programmatically in the source code and the integration uses
> > > that
> > > > >> bean
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
> > > > >> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set
> the
> > > > >> > properties
> > > > >> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the
> > ClientConfiguration
> > > > >> bean
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
> > > > >> > > > <
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
> > > > >> > programmatically
> > > > >> > > > >and
> > > > >> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous
> > > configuration
> > > > >> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
> > > > >> > > > <
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > .
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most
> > > frequently
> > > > >> used
> > > > >> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
> > > > >> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems
> > > > reasonable
> > > > >> if
> > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's
> > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > >> (so
> > > > >> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types).
> > Based
> > > > on
> > > > >> my
> > > > >> > > > experience, I would add the following settings of custom
> > > > >> non-primitive
> > > > >> > > > types:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
> > > > >> > > > <
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
> > > > >> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > with
> > > > >> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be done
> > > easily,
> > > > >> > right,
> > > > >> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the
> > > beginning,
> > > > I
> > > > >> > would
> > > > >> > > > only
> > > > >> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
> > > > >> > > > <
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > > > >> > spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
> > > > >> > > > <
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
> > > > >> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
> > > > >> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
> > > > >> > > > >via
> > > > >> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > >> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > <
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > >> >
> > > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > >> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > including
> > > > >> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
> > > > >> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
> > > > >> > > > <
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > > > >> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > with
> > > > >> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm
> assuming
> > > that
> > > > >> we
> > > > >> > can
> > > > >> > > > do
> > > > >> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through
> > > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > >> > > > (include)
> > > > >> > > > or inheritence.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
> > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to
> > create
> > > > an
> > > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to
> > > initialize
> > > > >> an
> > > > >> > > > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing
> > > something.
> > > > >> > > > -
> > > > >> > > > Denis
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > >> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and
> > network
> > > > >> options
> > > > >> > > for
> > > > >> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something
> > > > >> similar to
> > > > >> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > [1]
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> > > > >> > > > > [2]
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > > >> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Let me know what you think.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >> > > > > Saikat
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > >> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through
> > experimentation.
> > > > You
> > > > >> can
> > > > >> > > ask
> > > > >> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> > > > >> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> > > > >> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> > > > >> > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look
> > for
> > > > >> > > > EachProperty
> > > > >> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the
> > > > current
> > > > >> > > > existing
> > > > >> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items
> > are
> > > > >> setup.
> > > > >> > > > There
> > > > >> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have
> > > been
> > > > >> > pretty
> > > > >> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these
> > > > annotations
> > > > >> > work
> > > > >> > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > practice.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of
> > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > instances
> > > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to
> auto-configure a
> > > > >> single
> > > > >> > > > > instance
> > > > >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the
> configuration
> > > > >> matters
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest.
> > > Could
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> > > > > > recommend
> > > > >> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut
> > configuration
> > > > >> > > specifies
> > > > >> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
> > > > >> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the
> > > > >> > > communicationSpi,
> > > > >> > > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >>
> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty
> > > much
> > > > >> like
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with
> > > just
> > > > >> > > allowing
> > > > >> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > > single
> > > > >> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot
> > > > >> configuration:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as
> > the
> > > > >> > default
> > > > >> > > > use
> > > > >> > > > > > case
> > > > >> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work
> as
> > > > >> follows:
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > enable true
> > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > > > >> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
> > > > >> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > >> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
> > > > >> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
> > > > >> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > >> > > > > > > > - ...
> > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > enable: false
> > > > >> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence
> > of
> > > > >> > something
> > > > >> > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > >> dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary
> > bean
> > > is
> > > > >> used
> > > > >> > > by
> > > > >> > > > > > > default
> > > > >> > > > > > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with
> > > anything
> > > > >> but
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > default
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the
> > > > >> > configuration
> > > > >> > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > present.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that
> we
> > > > >> > shouldn't
> > > > >> > > > > bother
> > > > >> > > > > > > > about
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite
> instances.
> > > As I
> > > > >> said
> > > > >> > > > > before,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore,
> > Micronout
> > > is
> > > > >> > > designed
> > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can
> > > hardly
> > > > >> > think
> > > > >> > > > of a
> > > > >> > > > > > use
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need
> to
> > > boot
> > > > >> up
> > > > >> > > > several
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single
> > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > instance
> > > > >> > > > > > per
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It
> > will
> > > > >> > > > > significantly
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of
> > integration.
> > > > If
> > > > >> > > anybody
> > > > >> > > > > > needs
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate
> > them
> > > > >> > > manually.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > By default the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the
> thin-client
> > > > >> > > DynamicCache
> > > > >> > > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would
> > simply
> > > > >> > disallow
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let
> it
> > > be a
> > > > >> > thick
> > > > >> > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > thin
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already
> > > > >> started,
> > > > >> > > then
> > > > >> > > > > > throw
> > > > >> > > > > > > an
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin
> client
> > > (and
> > > > >> vice
> > > > >> > > > > versa).
> > > > >> > > > > > > As
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to
> > > > Micronaut,
> > > > >> I
> > > > >> > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > > > recommend
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in
> a
> > > > >> > serverless
> > > > >> > > > > > function
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster),
> > > while
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > > > micro-services
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean
> > > > definition
> > > > >> > was
> > > > >> > > > > mainly
> > > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the
> > > most
> > > > >> > > relevant.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point
> > about
> > > > >> > > Micronaut.
> > > > >> > > > > Let
> > > > >> > > > > > me
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
> > > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration =
> > new
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean
> > > below
> > > > >> > > without
> > > > >> > > > > > having
> > > > >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are
> > you
> > > > >> > getting a
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > > >> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw
> > > > together
> > > > >> > along
> > > > >> > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a
> > > > little
> > > > >> > > > > complicated
> > > > >> > > > > > > > but I
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >>
> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael
> Pollind <
> > > > >> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean
> > > > >> definition
> > > > >> > > was
> > > > >> > > > > > > mainly
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are
> the
> > > most
> > > > >> > > > relevant.
> > > > >> > > > > > Will
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration
> > > might
> > > > >> get a
> > > > >> > > > > little
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you
> can
> > > > pass
> > > > >> > that
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > somewhere
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as
> > > > follows:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration
> igniteConfiguration =
> > > new
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value =
> "communicationSpi")
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi =
> > new
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael
> Pollind
> > <
> > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the
> object
> > > is
> > > > >> > > > declared. I
> > > > >> > > > > > > think
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple
> > ConfigurationBuilders
> > > > If
> > > > >> i'm
> > > > >> > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > > > mistaken
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to
> > > provide
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > name
> > > > >> > > > > > since
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > that is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration
> under
> > > > >> > > > EachProperty.
> > > > >> > > > > > The
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > name is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean
> and
> > > also
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > same
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will
> just
> > > use
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > primary
> > > > >> > > > > > > bean
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache
> > > > >> instance
> > > > >> > > > active
> > > > >> > > > > > at a
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > time.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary
> > > bean
> > > > is
> > > > >> > used
> > > > >> > > > by
> > > > >> > > > > > > > default
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with
> > > > anything
> > > > >> > but
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > default
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if
> the
> > > > >> > > configuration
> > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > present.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can
> > only
> > > > use
> > > > >> one
> > > > >> > > > > > instance
> > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that
> works
> > > > >> again.
> > > > >> > By
> > > > >> > > > > > default
> > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the
> > thin-client
> > > > >> > > > DynamicCache
> > > > >> > > > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > >> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with
> > > > multiple
> > > > >> > > > > instances.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance
> > of
> > > a
> > > > >> thick
> > > > >> > > or
> > > > >> > > > > thin
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > client
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded
> and
> > > can
> > > > >> > > utilize
> > > > >> > > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > CPUs
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to
> have
> > > the
> > > > >> > ability
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > configure
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I
> > > > >> understand,
> > > > >> > > > > > Micronaut
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
> > > > >> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > property,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for
> > IgniteConfiguration?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those
> defaults
> > > > are?
> > > > >> By
> > > > >> > > > > looking
> > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
> > > > >> > > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see
> that
> > > > >> > Micronaut
> > > > >> > > > > could
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and
> > > > >> prepared
> > > > >> > > these
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > properties
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am
> configuring
> > > the
> > > > >> thin
> > > > >> > > > > client
> > > > >> > > > > > > in a
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of
> the
> > > > >> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override
> > some
> > > > >> > settings
> > > > >> > > > such
> > > > >> > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness".
> Does
> > > > this
> > > > >> > sound
> > > > >> > > > > > > accurate
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I
> > would
> > > > just
> > > > >> > swap
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > "path"
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
> > > > >> > > IgniteConfiguration.
> > > > >> > > > > > Then
> > > > >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration
> > > > defaults
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > > allow a
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
> > > > >> discoverySPI.ipFinder
> > > > >> > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > memory
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
> > > > >> > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > > > defaults
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > here
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael
> > Pollind <
> > > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with
> > > > multiple
> > > > >> > > > > instances.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I
> > believe
> > > I
> > > > >> was
> > > > >> > > > > > originally
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default
> > > ignite
> > > > >> > > instance
> > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > > > found
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration.
> > So
> > > > what
> > > > >> > > > defaults
> > > > >> > > > > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > > > set
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory
> > > items
> > > > >> can't
> > > > >> > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > > covered
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
> > > > >> > @ConfigurationProperty
> > > > >> > > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > > only
> > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways
> to
> > > > have
> > > > >> > > > multiple
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > factories
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets
> > > > >> overwhelming.
> > > > >> > > In
> > > > >> > > > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be
> > more
> > > > >> ideal
> > > > >> > in
> > > > >> > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I
> > > wouldn't
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > able
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > cover
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients:
> > > default:
> > > > >> > > > > > address:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800"
> > > - "
> > > > >> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
> > > > >> > > > > > > "
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot
> > > > >> documentation:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis
> Magda <
> > > > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki
> > > page.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration
> wiki
> > > > >> section
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > current
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > >> > configuration/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the
> following
> > > > >> changes:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the
> IgniteClientConfiguration
> > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
> > > > >> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > it's
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > done
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that
> > the
> > > > >> > > developers
> > > > >> > > > > > might
> > > > >> > > > > > > > need
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration
> > > scope
> > > > to
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > clients
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name"
> and
> > > > >> "path".
> > > > >> > I
> > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that
> > > > >> instantiates
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration.
> > If
> > > we
> > > > >> do
> > > > >> > > that,
> > > > >> > > > > > then
> > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of
> the
> > > > >> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for
> > the
> > > > >> Ignite
> > > > >> > > > Spring
> > > > >> > > > > > > Boot
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with
> > Micronaut.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is
> > > feasible,
> > > > >> > then I
> > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > rework
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration
> > > similarly,
> > > > >> > taking
> > > > >> > > > our
> > > > >> > > > > > > Spring
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > >> > > > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current
> > > > version
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > >> > configuration/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only
> > rename
> > > > >> > > > > "configuration"
> > > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since
> you
> > > can
> > > > >> pass
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the
> > format
> > > > >> below:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael
> > > > Pollind <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those
> > methods
> > > > get
> > > > >> > > > wrapped
> > > > >> > > > > > > into a
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've
> > listed
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > relevant
> > > > >> > > > > > > > sections
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along
> > > with
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > methods
> > > > >> > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working
> from.
> > > > >> Hopefully
> > > > >> > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > > helps.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig
> annotation
> > > but
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > > can
> > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key.
> By
> > > > >> default
> > > > >> > it
> > > > >> > > > uses
> > > > >> > > > > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > >> > interceptor/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on
> > sunday:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could
> expand
> > on
> > > > and
> > > > >> > how
> > > > >> > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > > could
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and
> > issue a
> > > > >> put if
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > value
> > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the
> > > > return
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> > > null
> > > > >> > > > > > else
> > > > >> > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake
> in
> > my
> > > > >> code
> > > > >> > > > > because I
> > > > >> > > > > > > use
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate
> > that
> > > > >> closer
> > > > >> > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > write
> > > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be
> > > > removed
> > > > >> by
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > key.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat
> > > > Maitra <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you
> are
> > > > using
> > > > >> > > > > @CachePut,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate
> > > > annotations
> > > > >> > and I
> > > > >> > > > was
> > > > >> > > > > > > > trying
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then
> > what
> > > > >> would
> > > > >> > be
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > underlying
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how
> > those
> > > > >> > > operations
> > > > >> > > > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this
> > below
> > > > >> method
> > > > >> > > > then
> > > > >> > > > > > how
> > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
> > > > >> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
> > > > >> > 0
> > > > >> > > })
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM
> Michael
> > > > >> Pollind
> > > > >> > <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do
> > you
> > > > mean
> > > > >> > this
> > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > > > need
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split
> > into
> > > > >> > multiple
> > > > >> > > > > > > modules.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was
> to
> > > > also
> > > > >> > have
> > > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-data
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working
> > > > correctly
> > > > >> > but
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > basic
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify
> the
> > > API
> > > > >> > > described
> > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best.
> At
> > > the
> > > > >> > moment
> > > > >> > > > I'm
> > > > >> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache
> and
> > > how
> > > > >> that
> > > > >> > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > fit
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added
> > > > complexity
> > > > >> > but
> > > > >> > > > I'm
> > > > >> > > > > > sure
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a
> > > separate
> > > > >> > module
> > > > >> > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project
> where
> > > > this
> > > > >> > > module
> > > > >> > > > > also
> > > > >> > > > > > > > has a
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and
> > > > >> SyncCache
> > > > >> > > are
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > two
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are
> > two
> > > > >> ways to
> > > > >> > > > > define
> > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for
> > > > AsyncCache
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > > > > > > SyncCache
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that
> > will
> > > > use
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > name
> > > > >> > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache
> used.
> > In
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > documentation
> > > > >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches
> > you
> > > > >> want
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> -
> > > > >> Denis
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
👍 Nice catch!
-
Denis
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:16 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing that just occurred to me for the DefaultIgniteConfiguration. you
> can actually just intercept the bean when it's created. This should let us
> use the enable flag from ignite-core for ignite-cache without the
> additional flag.
>
> @Singleton
> public class IgniteConfigurationFactoryInterceptor implements
> BeanCreatedEventListener<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> {
> @Override
> public IgniteConfiguration
> onCreated(BeanCreatedEvent<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> event) {
> IgniteConfiguration configuration = event.getBean();
> configuration.setIgniteInstanceName("instance-a");
> return configuration;
> }
> }
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Michael,
> >
> > Looks terrific! I went ahead and grouped the configuration samples by a
> > client type:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> >
> > As you see, the "Ignite Thin Client" section is blank for now. Would you
> > mind filling it with configuration options following the format taken for
> > the thick client?
> >
> > Ping me here once you're ready to review the API and implementation of
> the
> > ignite-caching module.
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:16 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Here is a sample project I threw together and I've also updated the
> wiki
> > > just a bit. working on updating the documentation on the micronaut end.
> > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config. splitting it into two
> > > modules
> > > > seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't really like the
> > random
> > > > boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your provider:
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
> > > >
> > > > kind of strange that there are not getters for the
> > > > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to verify that the
> > > > correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've written.
> > > >
> > > > static ip finder
> > > >
> > > > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
> "localhost:1800",
> > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "
> 127.0.0.1:47500
> > ",
> > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "
> 127.0.0.1:47501
> > ",
> > > >
> > > > kubernetties ip finder
> > > >
> > > > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
> > "localhost:1800",
> > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> > > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace": "HelloWorld"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Michael,
> > > >>
> > > >> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the ignite-cache module in
> > two
> > > >> (one for a thick-client based connection and the other for thin
> client
> > > >> connections), and would try to avoid this route if possible.
> > > >>
> > > >> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut developers can create a
> > > >> generic
> > > >> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite connectivity methods,
> > > which
> > > >> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache implementation can
> decide
> > > what
> > > >> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one, depends on
> the
> > > type
> > > >> of a client you started with our auto-configuration feature). Let’s
> > > >> discuss
> > > >> all the existing issues here and jump on another call to finalize a
> > > >> solution if needed.
> > > >>
> > > >> Denis
> > > >>
> > > >> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Michael,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went ahead and pushed
> > some
> > > >> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those changes do
> some
> > > >> minor
> > > >> > tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration class and add
> > > Static
> > > >> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> class.
> > > The
> > > >> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think we'll figure
> how
> > to
> > > >> > modify the test on the call today.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure IgniteCaches via the
> > > >> Micronaut
> > > >> > configuration. If an application needs to create any caches, it
> can
> > do
> > > >> this
> > > >> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -
> > > >> > Denis
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that these can
> be
> > > >> > provided through a factory.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > @Bean
> > > >> > @Named("default")
> > > >> > @Primary
> > > >> > public IgniteConfiguration
> > > >> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration configuration,
> > > >> >
> > > >> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration> cacheConfigurations,
> > > >> >
> > > >> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
> > > >> >
> > > >> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration> executorConfigurations,
> > > >> >
> > > >> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
> > > >> >
> > Optional<CollisionSpi>
> > > >> collisionSpi,
> > > >> >
> > > >> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
> > > >> >
> > Collection<FailoverSpi>
> > > >> failoverSpis,
> > > >> > @ConsistencyId
> > > >> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
> > > >> > @IgniteLifecycle
> > > >> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
> > > >> >
> > > configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
> > > >> CacheConfiguration[0]))
> > > >> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new
> > PluginProvider[0]))
> > > >> >
> .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
> > > >> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
> > > >> >
> > .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
> > > >> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new FailoverSpi[0]))
> > > >> > .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
> > > >> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
> > > >> > .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
> > > >> > .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new
> > > LifecycleBean[0]))
> > > >> > .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
> > > >> > return configuration;
> > > >> > }
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks like now.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ignite:
> > > >> > enabled: true
> > > >> > comunication-spi:
> > > >> > local-port: 5555
> > > >> > cache-configurations:
> > > >> > - accounts:
> > > >> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
> > > >> > key-type: String
> > > >> > - books:
> > > >> > table-name: BOOKS
> > > >> > key-type: String
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its static and
> > > nested
> > > >> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not work in this
> > > >> case. So
> > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the environment.
> This
> > > is a
> > > >> > working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it would have
> to
> > be
> > > >> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
> > > >> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum working setup
> and
> > > >> then
> > > >> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "dataStorageConfiguration",
> excludes =
> > > >> "dataRegionConfigurations")
> > > >> > final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration = new
> > > >> DataStorageConfiguration();
> > > >> >
> > > >> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
> > > >> > public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
> > > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > >> > DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration = new
> > > >> DataRegionConfiguration();
> > > >> >
> > > >> > public DataRegionConfiguration getDataRegionConfiguration() {
> > > >> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
> > > >> > }
> > > >> > }
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Dennis,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it because
> that
> > > >> didn't
> > > >> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
> > > >> ClientConfiguration
> > > >> > is a final class so that can't be extended from. This PR is
> starting
> > > to
> > > >> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the
> > documentation.
> > > >> The
> > > >> > other thing I did was add a flag for the associated cache to use
> > > >> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see If I can
> > work
> > > >> out
> > > >> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can provide
> > your
> > > >> own
> > > >> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > [image: image.png]
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Michael,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks, for verifying.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they
> > are
> > > >> just
> > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default configuration
> > for
> > > >> its
> > > >> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast core:
> > > >> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > >> > master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
> > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their Micronaut's
> > > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following configuration
> > > >> > parameteres:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the parent
> > > >> ClientConfig
> > > >> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes = {"properties",
> > > >> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
> > > >> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig, SocketOptions
> > > >> properties
> > > >> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be
> > inherited
> > > as
> > > >> > above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder
> > manually.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and here
> > is a
> > > >> > final list of configuration properties:
> > > >> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's start
> > with
> > > >> the
> > > >> > thin client. It's much simpler.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > yea, will need to
> > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there
> is
> > no
> > > >> way
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked
> > that
> > > >> out
> > > >> > > yet.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me know if
> you
> > > >> need
> > > >> > me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -
> > > >> > Denis
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Dennis,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > >> >
> > > main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > >> > java
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > test cases:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > > >> > test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> > > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they
> > are
> > > >> just
> > > >> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
> > > >> ConfigurationProperty
> > > >> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the
> > > >> documentation is
> > > >> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think this
> > > will
> > > >> > work
> > > >> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest @EachProperty
> in
> > a
> > > >> > single
> > > >> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how stuff
> gets
> > > >> > resolved
> > > >> > > (
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938
> > ).
> > > >> so
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a first
> > > working
> > > >> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea, will
> > need
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there
> is
> > no
> > > >> way
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked
> > that
> > > >> out
> > > >> > > yet.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Michael,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration specificities.
> > What
> > > >> > > confused
> > > >> > > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration in
> > > Micronaut
> > > >> > looks
> > > >> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former
> automates
> > a
> > > >> lot
> > > >> > > with
> > > >> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default
> Spring
> > > >> Boot
> > > >> > > > configuration looks
> > > >> > > > <
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
> > > >> > modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
> > > >> > main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
> > > >> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible
> > > >> property
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > an
> > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
> > > >> > > > <
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > >> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > >> > > > >.
> > > >> > > > The upside of the reflection.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would
> suggest.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that
> *extends*
> > > >> > Ignite's
> > > >> > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > >> > > > <
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > >> > ClientConfiguration.java
> > > >> > > > >.
> > > >> > > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
> > > >> > > ClientConfiguration
> > > >> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you
> > were
> > > >> doing
> > > >> > > > that
> > > >> > > > before I joined the review)
> > > >> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of
> custom
> > > >> > > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
> > > >> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
> > > >> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > >> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
> > > >> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we support
> > > >> another
> > > >> > > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is
> > created
> > > >> > > > programmatically in the source code and the integration uses
> > that
> > > >> bean
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
> > > >> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set the
> > > >> > properties
> > > >> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the
> ClientConfiguration
> > > >> bean
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
> > > >> > > > <
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >>
> > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
> > > >> > programmatically
> > > >> > > > >and
> > > >> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous
> > configuration
> > > >> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
> > > >> > > > <
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > >> > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > .
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most
> > frequently
> > > >> used
> > > >> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
> > > >> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > >> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems
> > > reasonable
> > > >> if
> > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's
> > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > >> (so
> > > >> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types).
> Based
> > > on
> > > >> my
> > > >> > > > experience, I would add the following settings of custom
> > > >> non-primitive
> > > >> > > > types:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
> > > >> > > > <
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
> > > >> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > with
> > > >> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be done
> > easily,
> > > >> > right,
> > > >> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the
> > beginning,
> > > I
> > > >> > would
> > > >> > > > only
> > > >> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
> > > >> > > > <
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > > >> > spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
> > > >> > > > <
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
> > > >> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
> > > >> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
> > > >> > > > >via
> > > >> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > >> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
> > > >> > > > <
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > >> >
> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > >> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > including
> > > >> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
> > > >> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
> > > >> > > > <
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > > >> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > with
> > > >> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm assuming
> > that
> > > >> we
> > > >> > can
> > > >> > > > do
> > > >> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through
> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > >> > > > (include)
> > > >> > > > or inheritence.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
> > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to
> create
> > > an
> > > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to
> > initialize
> > > >> an
> > > >> > > > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing
> > something.
> > > >> > > > -
> > > >> > > > Denis
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > >> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and
> network
> > > >> options
> > > >> > > for
> > > >> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something
> > > >> similar to
> > > >> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > [1]
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > >> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> > > >> > > > > [2]
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > > >> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Let me know what you think.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Regards,
> > > >> > > > > Saikat
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > >> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through
> experimentation.
> > > You
> > > >> can
> > > >> > > ask
> > > >> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> > > >> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> > > >> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> > > >> > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look
> for
> > > >> > > > EachProperty
> > > >> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the
> > > current
> > > >> > > > existing
> > > >> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items
> are
> > > >> setup.
> > > >> > > > There
> > > >> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have
> > been
> > > >> > pretty
> > > >> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these
> > > annotations
> > > >> > work
> > > >> > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > practice.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <
> > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Michael,
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of
> > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > instances
> > > >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a
> > > >> single
> > > >> > > > > instance
> > > >> > > > > > > only.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration
> > > >> matters
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest.
> > Could
> > > >> you
> > > >> > > > > > recommend
> > > >> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut
> configuration
> > > >> > > specifies
> > > >> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
> > > >> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the
> > > >> > > communicationSpi,
> > > >> > > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >>
> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > > >> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty
> > much
> > > >> like
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > > >> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > > >> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with
> > just
> > > >> > > allowing
> > > >> > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > > single
> > > >> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot
> > > >> configuration:
> > > >> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > > >> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as
> the
> > > >> > default
> > > >> > > > use
> > > >> > > > > > case
> > > >> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as
> > > >> follows:
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > >> > > > > > > > enable true
> > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > > >> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
> > > >> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
> > > >> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
> > > >> > > > > > > > ...
> > > >> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
> > > >> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
> > > >> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
> > > >> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
> > > >> > > > > > > > ...
> > > >> > > > > > > > - ...
> > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
> > > >> > > > > > > > enable: false
> > > >> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence
> of
> > > >> > something
> > > >> > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > > >> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <
> > > >> dmagda@apache.org
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Michael,
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary
> bean
> > is
> > > >> used
> > > >> > > by
> > > >> > > > > > > default
> > > >> > > > > > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with
> > anything
> > > >> but
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > default
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the
> > > >> > configuration
> > > >> > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > > > present.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we
> > > >> > shouldn't
> > > >> > > > > bother
> > > >> > > > > > > > about
> > > >> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances.
> > As I
> > > >> said
> > > >> > > > > before,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore,
> Micronout
> > is
> > > >> > > designed
> > > >> > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can
> > hardly
> > > >> > think
> > > >> > > > of a
> > > >> > > > > > use
> > > >> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to
> > boot
> > > >> up
> > > >> > > > several
> > > >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single
> > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > instance
> > > >> > > > > > per
> > > >> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It
> will
> > > >> > > > > significantly
> > > >> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of
> integration.
> > > If
> > > >> > > anybody
> > > >> > > > > > needs
> > > >> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate
> them
> > > >> > > manually.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > By default the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client
> > > >> > > DynamicCache
> > > >> > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would
> simply
> > > >> > disallow
> > > >> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it
> > be a
> > > >> > thick
> > > >> > > or
> > > >> > > > > > thin
> > > >> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already
> > > >> started,
> > > >> > > then
> > > >> > > > > > throw
> > > >> > > > > > > an
> > > >> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client
> > (and
> > > >> vice
> > > >> > > > > versa).
> > > >> > > > > > > As
> > > >> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to
> > > Micronaut,
> > > >> I
> > > >> > > would
> > > >> > > > > > > > recommend
> > > >> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a
> > > >> > serverless
> > > >> > > > > > function
> > > >> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster),
> > while
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > > > micro-services
> > > >> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean
> > > definition
> > > >> > was
> > > >> > > > > mainly
> > > >> > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the
> > most
> > > >> > > relevant.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point
> about
> > > >> > > Micronaut.
> > > >> > > > > Let
> > > >> > > > > > me
> > > >> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
> > > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > >> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration =
> new
> > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean
> > below
> > > >> > > without
> > > >> > > > > > having
> > > >> > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are
> you
> > > >> > getting a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
> > > >> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> > > >> > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > >> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw
> > > together
> > > >> > along
> > > >> > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a
> > > little
> > > >> > > > > complicated
> > > >> > > > > > > > but I
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >>
> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > >> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean
> > > >> definition
> > > >> > > was
> > > >> > > > > > > mainly
> > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the
> > most
> > > >> > > > relevant.
> > > >> > > > > > Will
> > > >> > > > > > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration
> > might
> > > >> get a
> > > >> > > > > little
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > > >> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can
> > > pass
> > > >> > that
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > somewhere
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as
> > > follows:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration =
> > new
> > > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi =
> new
> > > >> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind
> <
> > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object
> > is
> > > >> > > > declared. I
> > > >> > > > > > > think
> > > >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple
> ConfigurationBuilders
> > > If
> > > >> i'm
> > > >> > > not
> > > >> > > > > > > > mistaken
> > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to
> > provide
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > name
> > > >> > > > > > since
> > > >> > > > > > > > > that is
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under
> > > >> > > > EachProperty.
> > > >> > > > > > The
> > > >> > > > > > > > > name is
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and
> > also
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > same
> > > >> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just
> > use
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > primary
> > > >> > > > > > > bean
> > > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache
> > > >> instance
> > > >> > > > active
> > > >> > > > > > at a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > time.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary
> > bean
> > > is
> > > >> > used
> > > >> > > > by
> > > >> > > > > > > > default
> > > >> > > > > > > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with
> > > anything
> > > >> > but
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > default
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the
> > > >> > > configuration
> > > >> > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > > > > present.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can
> only
> > > use
> > > >> one
> > > >> > > > > > instance
> > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works
> > > >> again.
> > > >> > By
> > > >> > > > > > default
> > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the
> thin-client
> > > >> > > > DynamicCache
> > > >> > > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
> > > >> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with
> > > multiple
> > > >> > > > > instances.
> > > >> > > > > > > > This
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance
> of
> > a
> > > >> thick
> > > >> > > or
> > > >> > > > > thin
> > > >> > > > > > > > > client
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and
> > can
> > > >> > > utilize
> > > >> > > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > CPUs
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have
> > the
> > > >> > ability
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > configure
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I
> > > >> understand,
> > > >> > > > > > Micronaut
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
> > > >> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > >> > > > > > > > > property,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for
> IgniteConfiguration?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults
> > > are?
> > > >> By
> > > >> > > > > looking
> > > >> > > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > >> > > > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
> > > >> > > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that
> > > >> > Micronaut
> > > >> > > > > could
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and
> > > >> prepared
> > > >> > > these
> > > >> > > > > > > > > properties
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > >> > > > > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring
> > the
> > > >> thin
> > > >> > > > > client
> > > >> > > > > > > in a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
> > > >> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override
> some
> > > >> > settings
> > > >> > > > such
> > > >> > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does
> > > this
> > > >> > sound
> > > >> > > > > > > accurate
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I
> would
> > > just
> > > >> > swap
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > "path"
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
> > > >> > > IgniteConfiguration.
> > > >> > > > > > Then
> > > >> > > > > > > > let
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration
> > > defaults
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > allow a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
> > > >> discoverySPI.ipFinder
> > > >> > > or
> > > >> > > > > > memory
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
> > > >> > IgniteConfiguration
> > > >> > > > > > defaults
> > > >> > > > > > > > > here
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > >> > > > > > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael
> Pollind <
> > > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with
> > > multiple
> > > >> > > > > instances.
> > > >> > > > > > > > This
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I
> believe
> > I
> > > >> was
> > > >> > > > > > originally
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default
> > ignite
> > > >> > > instance
> > > >> > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > > > found
> > > >> > > > > > > > > I
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration.
> So
> > > what
> > > >> > > > defaults
> > > >> > > > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > > > set
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory
> > items
> > > >> can't
> > > >> > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > covered
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
> > > >> > @ConfigurationProperty
> > > >> > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > > only
> > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to
> > > have
> > > >> > > > multiple
> > > >> > > > > > > > > factories
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets
> > > >> overwhelming.
> > > >> > > In
> > > >> > > > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be
> more
> > > >> ideal
> > > >> > in
> > > >> > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I
> > wouldn't
> > > >> be
> > > >> > > able
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > cover
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients:
> > default:
> > > >> > > > > > address:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800"
> > - "
> > > >> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
> > > >> > > > > > > "
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot
> > > >> documentation:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
> > > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki
> > page.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki
> > > >> section
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > current
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > >> > configuration/
> > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following
> > > >> changes:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration
> to
> > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
> > > >> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > >> > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > it's
> > > >> > > > > > > > > done
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > > >> > > > > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that
> the
> > > >> > > developers
> > > >> > > > > > might
> > > >> > > > > > > > need
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > > >> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration
> > scope
> > > to
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > > > > clients
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and
> > > >> "path".
> > > >> > I
> > > >> > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > > > > replace
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that
> > > >> instantiates
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration.
> If
> > we
> > > >> do
> > > >> > > that,
> > > >> > > > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
> > > >> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for
> the
> > > >> Ignite
> > > >> > > > Spring
> > > >> > > > > > > Boot
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with
> Micronaut.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is
> > feasible,
> > > >> > then I
> > > >> > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > > > > rework
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration
> > similarly,
> > > >> > taking
> > > >> > > > our
> > > >> > > > > > > Spring
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > >> > > > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current
> > > version
> > > >> of
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > >> > configuration/
> > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only
> rename
> > > >> > > > > "configuration"
> > > >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you
> > can
> > > >> pass
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the
> format
> > > >> below:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael
> > > Pollind <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those
> methods
> > > get
> > > >> > > > wrapped
> > > >> > > > > > > into a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've
> listed
> > > the
> > > >> > > > relevant
> > > >> > > > > > > > sections
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along
> > with
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > methods
> > > >> > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from.
> > > >> Hopefully
> > > >> > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > > helps.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation
> > but
> > > >> this
> > > >> > > can
> > > >> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > changed
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By
> > > >> default
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > > uses
> > > >> > > > > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > >> > interceptor/
> > > >> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on
> sunday:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >>
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand
> on
> > > and
> > > >> > how
> > > >> > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > > could
> > > >> > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and
> issue a
> > > >> put if
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > value
> > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > >> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the
> > > return
> > > >> is
> > > >> > > null
> > > >> > > > > > else
> > > >> > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in
> my
> > > >> code
> > > >> > > > > because I
> > > >> > > > > > > use
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate
> that
> > > >> closer
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > write
> > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > >> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > >> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be
> > > removed
> > > >> by
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > key.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > >> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat
> > > Maitra <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are
> > > using
> > > >> > > > > @CachePut,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate
> > > annotations
> > > >> > and I
> > > >> > > > was
> > > >> > > > > > > > trying
> > > >> > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then
> what
> > > >> would
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > underlying
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how
> those
> > > >> > > operations
> > > >> > > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this
> below
> > > >> method
> > > >> > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > how
> > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
> > > >> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
> > > >> > 0
> > > >> > > })
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael
> > > >> Pollind
> > > >> > <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do
> you
> > > mean
> > > >> > this
> > > >> > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > > > need
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split
> into
> > > >> > multiple
> > > >> > > > > > > modules.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to
> > > also
> > > >> > have
> > > >> > > > > > > > ignite-data
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working
> > > correctly
> > > >> > but
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > basic
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the
> > API
> > > >> > > described
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At
> > the
> > > >> > moment
> > > >> > > > I'm
> > > >> > > > > > > > missing
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and
> > how
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > fit
> > > >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added
> > > complexity
> > > >> > but
> > > >> > > > I'm
> > > >> > > > > > sure
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a
> > separate
> > > >> > module
> > > >> > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where
> > > this
> > > >> > > module
> > > >> > > > > also
> > > >> > > > > > > > has a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and
> > > >> SyncCache
> > > >> > > are
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > two
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are
> two
> > > >> ways to
> > > >> > > > > define
> > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for
> > > AsyncCache
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > > > > SyncCache
> > > >> > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that
> will
> > > use
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > name
> > > >> > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used.
> In
> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > documentation
> > > >> > > > > > > > I
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches
> you
> > > >> want
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> -
> > > >> Denis
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
One thing that just occurred to me for the DefaultIgniteConfiguration. you
can actually just intercept the bean when it's created. This should let us
use the enable flag from ignite-core for ignite-cache without the
additional flag.
@Singleton
public class IgniteConfigurationFactoryInterceptor implements
BeanCreatedEventListener<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> {
@Override
public IgniteConfiguration
onCreated(BeanCreatedEvent<DefaultIgniteConfiguration> event) {
IgniteConfiguration configuration = event.getBean();
configuration.setIgniteInstanceName("instance-a");
return configuration;
}
}
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:31 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Looks terrific! I went ahead and grouped the configuration samples by a
> client type:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>
> As you see, the "Ignite Thin Client" section is blank for now. Would you
> mind filling it with configuration options following the format taken for
> the thick client?
>
> Ping me here once you're ready to review the API and implementation of the
> ignite-caching module.
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:16 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Here is a sample project I threw together and I've also updated the wiki
> > just a bit. working on updating the documentation on the micronaut end.
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config. splitting it into two
> > modules
> > > seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't really like the
> random
> > > boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your provider:
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
> > >
> > > kind of strange that there are not getters for the
> > > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to verify that the
> > > correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've written.
> > >
> > > static ip finder
> > >
> > > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" : "localhost:1800",
> > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "127.0.0.1:47500
> ",
> > > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "127.0.0.1:47501
> ",
> > >
> > > kubernetties ip finder
> > >
> > > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" :
> "localhost:1800",
> > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> > > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace": "HelloWorld"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Michael,
> > >>
> > >> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the ignite-cache module in
> two
> > >> (one for a thick-client based connection and the other for thin client
> > >> connections), and would try to avoid this route if possible.
> > >>
> > >> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut developers can create a
> > >> generic
> > >> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite connectivity methods,
> > which
> > >> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache implementation can decide
> > what
> > >> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one, depends on the
> > type
> > >> of a client you started with our auto-configuration feature). Let’s
> > >> discuss
> > >> all the existing issues here and jump on another call to finalize a
> > >> solution if needed.
> > >>
> > >> Denis
> > >>
> > >> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Michael,
> > >> >
> > >> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went ahead and pushed
> some
> > >> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those changes do some
> > >> minor
> > >> > tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration class and add
> > Static
> > >> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration class.
> > The
> > >> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think we'll figure how
> to
> > >> > modify the test on the call today.
> > >> >
> > >> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure IgniteCaches via the
> > >> Micronaut
> > >> > configuration. If an application needs to create any caches, it can
> do
> > >> this
> > >> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
> > >> >
> > >> > -
> > >> > Denis
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <mpollind@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that these can be
> > >> > provided through a factory.
> > >> >
> > >> > @Bean
> > >> > @Named("default")
> > >> > @Primary
> > >> > public IgniteConfiguration
> > >> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration configuration,
> > >> >
> > >> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration> cacheConfigurations,
> > >> >
> > >> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
> > >> >
> > >> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration> executorConfigurations,
> > >> >
> > >> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
> > >> >
> Optional<CollisionSpi>
> > >> collisionSpi,
> > >> >
> > >> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
> > >> >
> Collection<FailoverSpi>
> > >> failoverSpis,
> > >> > @ConsistencyId
> > >> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
> > >> > @IgniteLifecycle
> > >> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
> > >> >
> > configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
> > >> CacheConfiguration[0]))
> > >> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new
> PluginProvider[0]))
> > >> > .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
> > >> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
> > >> >
> .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
> > >> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new FailoverSpi[0]))
> > >> > .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
> > >> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
> > >> > .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
> > >> > .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new
> > LifecycleBean[0]))
> > >> > .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
> > >> > return configuration;
> > >> > }
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <mpollind@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks like now.
> > >> >
> > >> > ignite:
> > >> > enabled: true
> > >> > comunication-spi:
> > >> > local-port: 5555
> > >> > cache-configurations:
> > >> > - accounts:
> > >> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
> > >> > key-type: String
> > >> > - books:
> > >> > table-name: BOOKS
> > >> > key-type: String
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its static and
> > nested
> > >> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not work in this
> > >> case. So
> > >> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the environment. This
> > is a
> > >> > working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it would have to
> be
> > >> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
> > >> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum working setup and
> > >> then
> > >> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
> > >> >
> > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "dataStorageConfiguration", excludes =
> > >> "dataRegionConfigurations")
> > >> > final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration = new
> > >> DataStorageConfiguration();
> > >> >
> > >> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
> > >> > public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
> > >> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > >> > DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration = new
> > >> DataRegionConfiguration();
> > >> >
> > >> > public DataRegionConfiguration getDataRegionConfiguration() {
> > >> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
> > >> > }
> > >> > }
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <mpollind@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Dennis,
> > >> >
> > >> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it because that
> > >> didn't
> > >> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
> > >> ClientConfiguration
> > >> > is a final class so that can't be extended from. This PR is starting
> > to
> > >> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the
> documentation.
> > >> The
> > >> > other thing I did was add a flag for the associated cache to use
> > >> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see If I can
> work
> > >> out
> > >> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can provide
> your
> > >> own
> > >> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
> > >> >
> > >> > [image: image.png]
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Michael,
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks, for verifying.
> > >> >
> > >> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they
> are
> > >> just
> > >> > > placed into wrapper classes.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default configuration
> for
> > >> its
> > >> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast core:
> > >> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > >> > master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
> > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
> > >> >
> > >> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their Micronaut's
> > >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following configuration
> > >> > parameteres:
> > >> >
> > >> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the parent
> > >> ClientConfig
> > >> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes = {"properties",
> > >> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
> > >> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig, SocketOptions
> > >> properties
> > >> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be
> inherited
> > as
> > >> > above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder
> manually.
> > >> >
> > >> > As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and here
> is a
> > >> > final list of configuration properties:
> > >> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > >> >
> > >>
> > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
> > >> >
> > >> > Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's start
> with
> > >> the
> > >> > thin client. It's much simpler.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > > yea, will need to
> > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is
> no
> > >> way
> > >> > a
> > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked
> that
> > >> out
> > >> > > yet.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me know if you
> > >> need
> > >> > me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -
> > >> > Denis
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <mpollind@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Dennis,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > >> >
> > main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > >> > java
> > >> > > and
> > >> > >
> > >> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
> > >> > >
> > >> > > test cases:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > >> > test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> > >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they
> are
> > >> just
> > >> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
> > >> ConfigurationProperty
> > >> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the
> > >> documentation is
> > >> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think this
> > will
> > >> > work
> > >> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest @EachProperty in
> a
> > >> > single
> > >> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how stuff gets
> > >> > resolved
> > >> > > (https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938
> ).
> > >> so
> > >> > the
> > >> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a first
> > working
> > >> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea, will
> need
> > >> to
> > >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is
> no
> > >> way
> > >> > a
> > >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked
> that
> > >> out
> > >> > > yet.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Michael,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration specificities.
> What
> > >> > > confused
> > >> > > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration in
> > Micronaut
> > >> > looks
> > >> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former automates
> a
> > >> lot
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default Spring
> > >> Boot
> > >> > > > configuration looks
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
> > >> > modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
> > >> > main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
> > >> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible
> > >> property
> > >> > of
> > >> > > an
> > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > >> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > >> > > > >.
> > >> > > > The upside of the reflection.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would suggest.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that *extends*
> > >> > Ignite's
> > >> > > > ClientConfiguration
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > >> > ClientConfiguration.java
> > >> > > > >.
> > >> > > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
> > >> > > ClientConfiguration
> > >> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you
> were
> > >> doing
> > >> > > > that
> > >> > > > before I joined the review)
> > >> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of custom
> > >> > > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
> > >> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
> > >> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > >> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
> > >> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we support
> > >> another
> > >> > > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is
> created
> > >> > > > programmatically in the source code and the integration uses
> that
> > >> bean
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
> > >> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set the
> > >> > properties
> > >> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the ClientConfiguration
> > >> bean
> > >> > is
> > >> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >>
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
> > >> > programmatically
> > >> > > > >and
> > >> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous
> configuration
> > >> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > >> > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > .
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most
> frequently
> > >> used
> > >> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
> > >> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > >> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems
> > reasonable
> > >> if
> > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's
> > IgniteConfiguration
> > >> (so
> > >> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types). Based
> > on
> > >> my
> > >> > > > experience, I would add the following settings of custom
> > >> non-primitive
> > >> > > > types:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
> > >> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > with
> > >> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be done
> easily,
> > >> > right,
> > >> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the
> beginning,
> > I
> > >> > would
> > >> > > > only
> > >> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > >> > spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
> > >> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
> > >> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
> > >> > > > >via
> > >> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > >> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > >> >
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > >> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > including
> > >> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
> > >> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > >> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > with
> > >> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm assuming
> that
> > >> we
> > >> > can
> > >> > > > do
> > >> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through
> > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > >> > > > (include)
> > >> > > > or inheritence.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
> > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to create
> > an
> > >> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to
> initialize
> > >> an
> > >> > > > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing
> something.
> > >> > > > -
> > >> > > > Denis
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > >> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network
> > >> options
> > >> > > for
> > >> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something
> > >> similar to
> > >> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > [1]
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > >> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> > >> > > > > [2]
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > >> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Let me know what you think.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Regards,
> > >> > > > > Saikat
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
> > >> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation.
> > You
> > >> can
> > >> > > ask
> > >> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> > >> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> > >> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> > >> > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for
> > >> > > > EachProperty
> > >> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the
> > current
> > >> > > > existing
> > >> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are
> > >> setup.
> > >> > > > There
> > >> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have
> been
> > >> > pretty
> > >> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these
> > annotations
> > >> > work
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > > practice.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <
> > dmagda@apache.org>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Michael,
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of
> > Ignite
> > >> > > > instances
> > >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a
> > >> single
> > >> > > > > instance
> > >> > > > > > > only.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration
> > >> matters
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest.
> Could
> > >> you
> > >> > > > > > recommend
> > >> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration
> > >> > > specifies
> > >> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
> > >> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the
> > >> > > communicationSpi,
> > >> > > > > so
> > >> > > > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > >> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty
> much
> > >> like
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > >> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > >> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with
> just
> > >> > > allowing
> > >> > > > a
> > >> > > > > > > single
> > >> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot
> > >> configuration:
> > >> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > >> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the
> > >> > default
> > >> > > > use
> > >> > > > > > case
> > >> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as
> > >> follows:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > ignite:
> > >> > > > > > > > enable true
> > >> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > >> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
> > >> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
> > >> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
> > >> > > > > > > > ...
> > >> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
> > >> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
> > >> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
> > >> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
> > >> > > > > > > > ...
> > >> > > > > > > > - ...
> > >> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
> > >> > > > > > > > enable: false
> > >> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of
> > >> > something
> > >> > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > >> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <
> > >> dmagda@apache.org
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Michael,
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean
> is
> > >> used
> > >> > > by
> > >> > > > > > > default
> > >> > > > > > > > so
> > >> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with
> anything
> > >> but
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > > default
> > >> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the
> > >> > configuration
> > >> > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > present.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we
> > >> > shouldn't
> > >> > > > > bother
> > >> > > > > > > > about
> > >> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances.
> As I
> > >> said
> > >> > > > > before,
> > >> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout
> is
> > >> > > designed
> > >> > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can
> hardly
> > >> > think
> > >> > > > of a
> > >> > > > > > use
> > >> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to
> boot
> > >> up
> > >> > > > several
> > >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single
> > Ignite
> > >> > > > instance
> > >> > > > > > per
> > >> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will
> > >> > > > > significantly
> > >> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration.
> > If
> > >> > > anybody
> > >> > > > > > needs
> > >> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them
> > >> > > manually.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > By default the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client
> > >> > > DynamicCache
> > >> > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply
> > >> > disallow
> > >> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it
> be a
> > >> > thick
> > >> > > or
> > >> > > > > > thin
> > >> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already
> > >> started,
> > >> > > then
> > >> > > > > > throw
> > >> > > > > > > an
> > >> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client
> (and
> > >> vice
> > >> > > > > versa).
> > >> > > > > > > As
> > >> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to
> > Micronaut,
> > >> I
> > >> > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > recommend
> > >> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a
> > >> > serverless
> > >> > > > > > function
> > >> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster),
> while
> > >> for
> > >> > > > > > > > micro-services
> > >> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean
> > definition
> > >> > was
> > >> > > > > mainly
> > >> > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the
> most
> > >> > > relevant.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about
> > >> > > Micronaut.
> > >> > > > > Let
> > >> > > > > > me
> > >> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
> > >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > >> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean
> below
> > >> > > without
> > >> > > > > > having
> > >> > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you
> > >> > getting a
> > >> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > ignite:
> > >> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
> > >> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > >> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
> > >> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> > >> > > > > > > > > -
> > >> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
> > >> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw
> > together
> > >> > along
> > >> > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a
> > little
> > >> > > > > complicated
> > >> > > > > > > > but I
> > >> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > >> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > >> > > > > > > >
> rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
> > >> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean
> > >> definition
> > >> > > was
> > >> > > > > > > mainly
> > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the
> most
> > >> > > > relevant.
> > >> > > > > > Will
> > >> > > > > > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration
> might
> > >> get a
> > >> > > > > little
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > >> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can
> > pass
> > >> > that
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > somewhere
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as
> > follows:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration =
> new
> > >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
> > >> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
> > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object
> is
> > >> > > > declared. I
> > >> > > > > > > think
> > >> > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders
> > If
> > >> i'm
> > >> > > not
> > >> > > > > > > > mistaken
> > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to
> provide
> > >> the
> > >> > > name
> > >> > > > > > since
> > >> > > > > > > > > that is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under
> > >> > > > EachProperty.
> > >> > > > > > The
> > >> > > > > > > > > name is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and
> also
> > >> the
> > >> > > same
> > >> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just
> use
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > primary
> > >> > > > > > > bean
> > >> > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache
> > >> instance
> > >> > > > active
> > >> > > > > > at a
> > >> > > > > > > > > time.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary
> bean
> > is
> > >> > used
> > >> > > > by
> > >> > > > > > > > default
> > >> > > > > > > > > so
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with
> > anything
> > >> > but
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > default
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the
> > >> > > configuration
> > >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > present.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only
> > use
> > >> one
> > >> > > > > > instance
> > >> > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works
> > >> again.
> > >> > By
> > >> > > > > > default
> > >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client
> > >> > > > DynamicCache
> > >> > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
> > >> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with
> > multiple
> > >> > > > > instances.
> > >> > > > > > > > This
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of
> a
> > >> thick
> > >> > > or
> > >> > > > > thin
> > >> > > > > > > > > client
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and
> can
> > >> > > utilize
> > >> > > > > all
> > >> > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > CPUs
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have
> the
> > >> > ability
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > configure
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I
> > >> understand,
> > >> > > > > > Micronaut
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
> > >> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > >> > > > > > > > > property,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults
> > are?
> > >> By
> > >> > > > > looking
> > >> > > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > >> > > > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
> > >> > > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that
> > >> > Micronaut
> > >> > > > > could
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and
> > >> prepared
> > >> > > these
> > >> > > > > > > > > properties
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > >> > > > > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring
> the
> > >> thin
> > >> > > > > client
> > >> > > > > > > in a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
> > >> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some
> > >> > settings
> > >> > > > such
> > >> > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does
> > this
> > >> > sound
> > >> > > > > > > accurate
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would
> > just
> > >> > swap
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > "path"
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
> > >> > > IgniteConfiguration.
> > >> > > > > > Then
> > >> > > > > > > > let
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration
> > defaults
> > >> and
> > >> > > > > allow a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
> > >> discoverySPI.ipFinder
> > >> > > or
> > >> > > > > > memory
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
> > >> > IgniteConfiguration
> > >> > > > > > defaults
> > >> > > > > > > > > here
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > >> > > > > > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
> > >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with
> > multiple
> > >> > > > > instances.
> > >> > > > > > > > This
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe
> I
> > >> was
> > >> > > > > > originally
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default
> ignite
> > >> > > instance
> > >> > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > > > found
> > >> > > > > > > > > I
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So
> > what
> > >> > > > defaults
> > >> > > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > > > set
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory
> items
> > >> can't
> > >> > > be
> > >> > > > > > > covered
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
> > >> > @ConfigurationProperty
> > >> > > > can
> > >> > > > > > > only
> > >> > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to
> > have
> > >> > > > multiple
> > >> > > > > > > > > factories
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets
> > >> overwhelming.
> > >> > > In
> > >> > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more
> > >> ideal
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I
> wouldn't
> > >> be
> > >> > > able
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > cover
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients:
> default:
> > >> > > > > > address:
> > >> > > > > > > > > -
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800"
> - "
> > >> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
> > >> > > > > > > "
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot
> > >> documentation:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
> > >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki
> page.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki
> > >> section
> > >> > and
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > current
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > >> > configuration/
> > >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following
> > >> changes:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
> > >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
> > >> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > >> > > > as
> > >> > > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > > > > done
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > >> > > > > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > >> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the
> > >> > > developers
> > >> > > > > > might
> > >> > > > > > > > need
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > >> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration
> scope
> > to
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > > > > clients
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and
> > >> "path".
> > >> > I
> > >> > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > > replace
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that
> > >> instantiates
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If
> we
> > >> do
> > >> > > that,
> > >> > > > > > then
> > >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
> > >> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the
> > >> Ignite
> > >> > > > Spring
> > >> > > > > > > Boot
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is
> feasible,
> > >> > then I
> > >> > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > > rework
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration
> similarly,
> > >> > taking
> > >> > > > our
> > >> > > > > > > Spring
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > >> > > > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current
> > version
> > >> of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > >> > configuration/
> > >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename
> > >> > > > > "configuration"
> > >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you
> can
> > >> pass
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format
> > >> below:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael
> > Pollind <
> > >> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods
> > get
> > >> > > > wrapped
> > >> > > > > > > into a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed
> > the
> > >> > > > relevant
> > >> > > > > > > > sections
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along
> with
> > >> the
> > >> > > > methods
> > >> > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > get
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from.
> > >> Hopefully
> > >> > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > helps.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation
> but
> > >> this
> > >> > > can
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > changed
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By
> > >> default
> > >> > it
> > >> > > > uses
> > >> > > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > >> > interceptor/
> > >> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >
> > >>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on
> > and
> > >> > how
> > >> > > > this
> > >> > > > > > > could
> > >> > > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a
> > >> put if
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > value
> > >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > >> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the
> > return
> > >> is
> > >> > > null
> > >> > > > > > else
> > >> > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my
> > >> code
> > >> > > > > because I
> > >> > > > > > > use
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that
> > >> closer
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > > > write
> > >> > > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > >> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > >> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be
> > removed
> > >> by
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > key.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > >> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat
> > Maitra <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are
> > using
> > >> > > > > @CachePut,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate
> > annotations
> > >> > and I
> > >> > > > was
> > >> > > > > > > > trying
> > >> > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what
> > >> would
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > underlying
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those
> > >> > > operations
> > >> > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below
> > >> method
> > >> > > > then
> > >> > > > > > how
> > >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
> > >> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
> > >> > 0
> > >> > > })
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael
> > >> Pollind
> > >> > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you
> > mean
> > >> > this
> > >> > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > > > need
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into
> > >> > multiple
> > >> > > > > > > modules.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to
> > also
> > >> > have
> > >> > > > > > > > ignite-data
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working
> > correctly
> > >> > but
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > basic
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the
> API
> > >> > > described
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At
> the
> > >> > moment
> > >> > > > I'm
> > >> > > > > > > > missing
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and
> how
> > >> that
> > >> > > > would
> > >> > > > > > fit
> > >> > > > > > > > > into
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added
> > complexity
> > >> > but
> > >> > > > I'm
> > >> > > > > > sure
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a
> separate
> > >> > module
> > >> > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where
> > this
> > >> > > module
> > >> > > > > also
> > >> > > > > > > > has a
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and
> > >> SyncCache
> > >> > > are
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > two
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two
> > >> ways to
> > >> > > > > define
> > >> > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for
> > AsyncCache
> > >> > and
> > >> > > > > > > SyncCache
> > >> > > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will
> > use
> > >> the
> > >> > > > name
> > >> > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In
> > the
> > >> > > > > > > documentation
> > >> > > > > > > > I
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
> > >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you
> > >> want
> > >> > and
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> -
> > >> Denis
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Michael,
Looks terrific! I went ahead and grouped the configuration samples by a
client type:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
As you see, the "Ignite Thin Client" section is blank for now. Would you
mind filling it with configuration options following the format taken for
the thick client?
Ping me here once you're ready to review the API and implementation of the
ignite-caching module.
-
Denis
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:16 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is a sample project I threw together and I've also updated the wiki
> just a bit. working on updating the documentation on the micronaut end.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config. splitting it into two
> modules
> > seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't really like the random
> > boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your provider:
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
> >
> > kind of strange that there are not getters for the
> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to verify that the
> > correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've written.
> >
> > static ip finder
> >
> > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" : "localhost:1800",
> > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "127.0.0.1:47500",
> > "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "127.0.0.1:47501",
> >
> > kubernetties ip finder
> >
> > "ignite.enabled" : true,
> > "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" : "localhost:1800",
> > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> > "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace": "HelloWorld"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael,
> >>
> >> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the ignite-cache module in two
> >> (one for a thick-client based connection and the other for thin client
> >> connections), and would try to avoid this route if possible.
> >>
> >> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut developers can create a
> >> generic
> >> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite connectivity methods,
> which
> >> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache implementation can decide
> what
> >> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one, depends on the
> type
> >> of a client you started with our auto-configuration feature). Let’s
> >> discuss
> >> all the existing issues here and jump on another call to finalize a
> >> solution if needed.
> >>
> >> Denis
> >>
> >> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Michael,
> >> >
> >> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went ahead and pushed some
> >> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those changes do some
> >> minor
> >> > tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration class and add
> Static
> >> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration class.
> The
> >> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think we'll figure how to
> >> > modify the test on the call today.
> >> >
> >> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure IgniteCaches via the
> >> Micronaut
> >> > configuration. If an application needs to create any caches, it can do
> >> this
> >> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
> >> >
> >> > -
> >> > Denis
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that these can be
> >> > provided through a factory.
> >> >
> >> > @Bean
> >> > @Named("default")
> >> > @Primary
> >> > public IgniteConfiguration
> >> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration configuration,
> >> >
> >> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration> cacheConfigurations,
> >> >
> >> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
> >> >
> >> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration> executorConfigurations,
> >> >
> >> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
> >> > Optional<CollisionSpi>
> >> collisionSpi,
> >> >
> >> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
> >> > Collection<FailoverSpi>
> >> failoverSpis,
> >> > @ConsistencyId
> >> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
> >> > @IgniteLifecycle
> >> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
> >> >
> configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
> >> CacheConfiguration[0]))
> >> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new PluginProvider[0]))
> >> > .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
> >> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
> >> > .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
> >> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new FailoverSpi[0]))
> >> > .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
> >> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
> >> > .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
> >> > .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new
> LifecycleBean[0]))
> >> > .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
> >> > return configuration;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks like now.
> >> >
> >> > ignite:
> >> > enabled: true
> >> > comunication-spi:
> >> > local-port: 5555
> >> > cache-configurations:
> >> > - accounts:
> >> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
> >> > key-type: String
> >> > - books:
> >> > table-name: BOOKS
> >> > key-type: String
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its static and
> nested
> >> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not work in this
> >> case. So
> >> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the environment. This
> is a
> >> > working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it would have to be
> >> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration. DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
> >> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum working setup and
> >> then
> >> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
> >> >
> >> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "dataStorageConfiguration", excludes =
> >> "dataRegionConfigurations")
> >> > final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration = new
> >> DataStorageConfiguration();
> >> >
> >> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
> >> > public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
> >> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> >> > DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration = new
> >> DataRegionConfiguration();
> >> >
> >> > public DataRegionConfiguration getDataRegionConfiguration() {
> >> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
> >> > }
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Dennis,
> >> >
> >> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it because that
> >> didn't
> >> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
> >> ClientConfiguration
> >> > is a final class so that can't be extended from. This PR is starting
> to
> >> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the documentation.
> >> The
> >> > other thing I did was add a flag for the associated cache to use
> >> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see If I can work
> >> out
> >> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can provide your
> >> own
> >> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
> >> >
> >> > [image: image.png]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Michael,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks, for verifying.
> >> >
> >> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are
> >> just
> >> > > placed into wrapper classes.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default configuration for
> >> its
> >> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast core:
> >> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> >> > master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
> >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
> >> >
> >> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their Micronaut's
> >> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following configuration
> >> > parameteres:
> >> >
> >> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the parent
> >> ClientConfig
> >> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes = {"properties",
> >> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
> >> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig, SocketOptions
> >> properties
> >> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be inherited
> as
> >> > above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder manually.
> >> >
> >> > As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and here is a
> >> > final list of configuration properties:
> >> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> >> >
> >>
> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
> >> >
> >> > Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's start with
> >> the
> >> > thin client. It's much simpler.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > yea, will need to
> >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no
> >> way
> >> > a
> >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that
> >> out
> >> > > yet.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me know if you
> >> need
> >> > me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -
> >> > Denis
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Dennis,
> >> > >
> >> > > This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
> >> > >
> >> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> >> >
> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> >> > java
> >> > > and
> >> > >
> >> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> >> >
> >>
> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
> >> > >
> >> > > test cases:
> >> > >
> >> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> >> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> >> > test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
> >> > >
> >> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> >> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are
> >> just
> >> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
> >> ConfigurationProperty
> >> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the
> >> documentation is
> >> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think this
> will
> >> > work
> >> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest @EachProperty in a
> >> > single
> >> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how stuff gets
> >> > resolved
> >> > > (https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938).
> >> so
> >> > the
> >> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a first
> working
> >> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea, will need
> >> to
> >> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no
> >> way
> >> > a
> >> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that
> >> out
> >> > > yet.
> >> > >
> >> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Michael,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration specificities. What
> >> > > confused
> >> > > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration in
> Micronaut
> >> > looks
> >> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former automates a
> >> lot
> >> > > with
> >> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default Spring
> >> Boot
> >> > > > configuration looks
> >> > > > <
> >> > > >
> >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
> >> > modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
> >> > main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
> >> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible
> >> property
> >> > of
> >> > > an
> >> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
> >> > > > <
> >> > > >
> >> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> >> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> >> > > > >.
> >> > > > The upside of the reflection.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would suggest.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that *extends*
> >> > Ignite's
> >> > > > ClientConfiguration
> >> > > > <
> >> > > >
> >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> >> > ClientConfiguration.java
> >> > > > >.
> >> > > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
> >> > > ClientConfiguration
> >> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you were
> >> doing
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > before I joined the review)
> >> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of custom
> >> > > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
> >> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
> >> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> >> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
> >> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we support
> >> another
> >> > > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is created
> >> > > > programmatically in the source code and the integration uses that
> >> bean
> >> > to
> >> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
> >> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set the
> >> > properties
> >> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the ClientConfiguration
> >> bean
> >> > is
> >> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
> >> > > > <
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
> >> > programmatically
> >> > > > >and
> >> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous configuration
> >> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
> >> > > > <
> >> > > >
> >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> >> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> >> > IgniteConfiguration.java
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > .
> >> > > >
> >> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most frequently
> >> used
> >> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
> >> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> >> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems
> reasonable
> >> if
> >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's
> IgniteConfiguration
> >> (so
> >> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types). Based
> on
> >> my
> >> > > > experience, I would add the following settings of custom
> >> non-primitive
> >> > > > types:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
> >> > > > <
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> >> >
> >>
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
> >> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be done easily,
> >> > right,
> >> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the beginning,
> I
> >> > would
> >> > > > only
> >> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
> >> > > > <
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> >> > spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
> >> > > > <
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> >> > 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
> >> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
> >> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
> >> > > > >via
> >> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> >> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
> >> > > > <
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> >> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > including
> >> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
> >> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
> >> > > > <
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> >> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> >> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm assuming that
> >> we
> >> > can
> >> > > > do
> >> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through
> @ConfigurationBuilder
> >> > > > (include)
> >> > > > or inheritence.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
> >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to create
> an
> >> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to initialize
> >> an
> >> > > > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing something.
> >> > > > -
> >> > > > Denis
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
> >> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> >> > >
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network
> >> options
> >> > > for
> >> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something
> >> similar to
> >> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > [1]
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> >> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> >> > > > > [2]
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> >> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Let me know what you think.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Regards,
> >> > > > > Saikat
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
> >> mpollind@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation.
> You
> >> can
> >> > > ask
> >> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> >> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> >> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> >> > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for
> >> > > > EachProperty
> >> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the
> current
> >> > > > existing
> >> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are
> >> setup.
> >> > > > There
> >> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been
> >> > pretty
> >> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these
> annotations
> >> > work
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > practice.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Michael,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of
> Ignite
> >> > > > instances
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a
> >> single
> >> > > > > instance
> >> > > > > > > only.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration
> >> matters
> >> > of
> >> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could
> >> you
> >> > > > > > recommend
> >> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration
> >> > > specifies
> >> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
> >> > mpollind@gmail.com
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the
> >> > > communicationSpi,
> >> > > > > so
> >> > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> >> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much
> >> like
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> >> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> >> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just
> >> > > allowing
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > > > single
> >> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot
> >> configuration:
> >> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> >> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the
> >> > default
> >> > > > use
> >> > > > > > case
> >> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as
> >> follows:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > ignite:
> >> > > > > > > > enable true
> >> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> >> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
> >> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
> >> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
> >> > > > > > > > ...
> >> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
> >> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
> >> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
> >> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
> >> > > > > > > > ...
> >> > > > > > > > - ...
> >> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
> >> > > > > > > > enable: false
> >> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of
> >> > something
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> >> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <
> >> dmagda@apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Michael,
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is
> >> used
> >> > > by
> >> > > > > > > default
> >> > > > > > > > so
> >> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything
> >> but
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > default
> >> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the
> >> > configuration
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > present.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we
> >> > shouldn't
> >> > > > > bother
> >> > > > > > > > about
> >> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I
> >> said
> >> > > > > before,
> >> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is
> >> > > designed
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly
> >> > think
> >> > > > of a
> >> > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot
> >> up
> >> > > > several
> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single
> Ignite
> >> > > > instance
> >> > > > > > per
> >> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will
> >> > > > > significantly
> >> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration.
> If
> >> > > anybody
> >> > > > > > needs
> >> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them
> >> > > manually.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > By default the
> >> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client
> >> > > DynamicCache
> >> > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply
> >> > disallow
> >> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a
> >> > thick
> >> > > or
> >> > > > > > thin
> >> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already
> >> started,
> >> > > then
> >> > > > > > throw
> >> > > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and
> >> vice
> >> > > > > versa).
> >> > > > > > > As
> >> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to
> Micronaut,
> >> I
> >> > > would
> >> > > > > > > > recommend
> >> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a
> >> > serverless
> >> > > > > > function
> >> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while
> >> for
> >> > > > > > > > micro-services
> >> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean
> definition
> >> > was
> >> > > > > mainly
> >> > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
> >> > > relevant.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about
> >> > > Micronaut.
> >> > > > > Let
> >> > > > > > me
> >> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
> >> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> >> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below
> >> > > without
> >> > > > > > having
> >> > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you
> >> > getting a
> >> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > ignite:
> >> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
> >> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> >> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
> >> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> >> > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
> >> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw
> together
> >> > along
> >> > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a
> little
> >> > > > > complicated
> >> > > > > > > > but I
> >> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> >> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> >> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> >> > > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
> >> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean
> >> definition
> >> > > was
> >> > > > > > > mainly
> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
> >> > > > relevant.
> >> > > > > > Will
> >> > > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might
> >> get a
> >> > > > > little
> >> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> >> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> >> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can
> pass
> >> > that
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > > > somewhere
> >> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as
> follows:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
> >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> >> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> >> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> >> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> >> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
> >> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
> >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is
> >> > > > declared. I
> >> > > > > > > think
> >> > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders
> If
> >> i'm
> >> > > not
> >> > > > > > > > mistaken
> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide
> >> the
> >> > > name
> >> > > > > > since
> >> > > > > > > > > that is
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under
> >> > > > EachProperty.
> >> > > > > > The
> >> > > > > > > > > name is
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also
> >> the
> >> > > same
> >> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use
> >> the
> >> > > > > primary
> >> > > > > > > bean
> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache
> >> instance
> >> > > > active
> >> > > > > > at a
> >> > > > > > > > > time.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean
> is
> >> > used
> >> > > > by
> >> > > > > > > > default
> >> > > > > > > > > so
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with
> anything
> >> > but
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > default
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the
> >> > > configuration
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > present.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only
> use
> >> one
> >> > > > > > instance
> >> > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works
> >> again.
> >> > By
> >> > > > > > default
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client
> >> > > > DynamicCache
> >> > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> >> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
> >> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with
> multiple
> >> > > > > instances.
> >> > > > > > > > This
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a
> >> thick
> >> > > or
> >> > > > > thin
> >> > > > > > > > > client
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can
> >> > > utilize
> >> > > > > all
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > CPUs
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the
> >> > ability
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > configure
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I
> >> understand,
> >> > > > > > Micronaut
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
> >> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> >> > > > > > > > > property,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults
> are?
> >> By
> >> > > > > looking
> >> > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> >> > > > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
> >> > > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that
> >> > Micronaut
> >> > > > > could
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and
> >> prepared
> >> > > these
> >> > > > > > > > > properties
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> >> > > > > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the
> >> thin
> >> > > > > client
> >> > > > > > > in a
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
> >> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some
> >> > settings
> >> > > > such
> >> > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does
> this
> >> > sound
> >> > > > > > > accurate
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would
> just
> >> > swap
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > "path"
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
> >> > > IgniteConfiguration.
> >> > > > > > Then
> >> > > > > > > > let
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration
> defaults
> >> and
> >> > > > > allow a
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
> >> discoverySPI.ipFinder
> >> > > or
> >> > > > > > memory
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
> >> > IgniteConfiguration
> >> > > > > > defaults
> >> > > > > > > > > here
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> >> > > > > > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
> >> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with
> multiple
> >> > > > > instances.
> >> > > > > > > > This
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I
> >> was
> >> > > > > > originally
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite
> >> > > instance
> >> > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > found
> >> > > > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So
> what
> >> > > > defaults
> >> > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > set
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items
> >> can't
> >> > > be
> >> > > > > > > covered
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
> >> > @ConfigurationProperty
> >> > > > can
> >> > > > > > > only
> >> > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to
> have
> >> > > > multiple
> >> > > > > > > > > factories
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets
> >> overwhelming.
> >> > > In
> >> > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more
> >> ideal
> >> > in
> >> > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't
> >> be
> >> > > able
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > cover
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default:
> >> > > > > > address:
> >> > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
> >> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
> >> > > > > > > "
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot
> >> documentation:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
> >> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki
> >> section
> >> > and
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > current
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> >> > configuration/
> >> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following
> >> changes:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
> >> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
> >> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> >> > > > as
> >> > > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > > > done
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> >> > > > > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> >> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the
> >> > > developers
> >> > > > > > might
> >> > > > > > > > need
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > >
> https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> >> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope
> to
> >> > the
> >> > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > clients
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and
> >> "path".
> >> > I
> >> > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > replace
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that
> >> instantiates
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we
> >> do
> >> > > that,
> >> > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
> >> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the
> >> Ignite
> >> > > > Spring
> >> > > > > > > Boot
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> >> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible,
> >> > then I
> >> > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > rework
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly,
> >> > taking
> >> > > > our
> >> > > > > > > Spring
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> >> > > > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current
> version
> >> of
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> >> > configuration/
> >> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename
> >> > > > > "configuration"
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can
> >> pass
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format
> >> below:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael
> Pollind <
> >> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods
> get
> >> > > > wrapped
> >> > > > > > > into a
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed
> the
> >> > > > relevant
> >> > > > > > > > sections
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with
> >> the
> >> > > > methods
> >> > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > get
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from.
> >> Hopefully
> >> > > > this
> >> > > > > > > helps.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but
> >> this
> >> > > can
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > changed
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By
> >> default
> >> > it
> >> > > > uses
> >> > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> >> > interceptor/
> >> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on
> and
> >> > how
> >> > > > this
> >> > > > > > > could
> >> > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a
> >> put if
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > value
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> >> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the
> return
> >> is
> >> > > null
> >> > > > > > else
> >> > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my
> >> code
> >> > > > > because I
> >> > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that
> >> closer
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > > write
> >> > > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> >> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> >> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be
> removed
> >> by
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > key.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> >> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> >> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> >> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> >> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat
> Maitra <
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are
> using
> >> > > > > @CachePut,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate
> annotations
> >> > and I
> >> > > > was
> >> > > > > > > > trying
> >> > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what
> >> would
> >> > be
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > underlying
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those
> >> > > operations
> >> > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below
> >> method
> >> > > > then
> >> > > > > > how
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
> >> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
> >> > 0
> >> > > })
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael
> >> Pollind
> >> > <
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you
> mean
> >> > this
> >> > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > need
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into
> >> > multiple
> >> > > > > > > modules.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to
> also
> >> > have
> >> > > > > > > > ignite-data
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working
> correctly
> >> > but
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > basic
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API
> >> > > described
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the
> >> > moment
> >> > > > I'm
> >> > > > > > > > missing
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how
> >> that
> >> > > > would
> >> > > > > > fit
> >> > > > > > > > > into
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added
> complexity
> >> > but
> >> > > > I'm
> >> > > > > > sure
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate
> >> > module
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where
> this
> >> > > module
> >> > > > > also
> >> > > > > > > > has a
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and
> >> SyncCache
> >> > > are
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > two
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two
> >> ways to
> >> > > > > define
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for
> AsyncCache
> >> > and
> >> > > > > > > SyncCache
> >> > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will
> use
> >> the
> >> > > > name
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In
> the
> >> > > > > > > documentation
> >> > > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you
> >> want
> >> > and
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> -
> >> Denis
> >>
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
Here is a sample project I threw together and I've also updated the wiki
just a bit. working on updating the documentation on the micronaut end.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite-sample
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config. splitting it into two modules
> seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't really like the random
> boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your provider:
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
>
> kind of strange that there are not getters for the
> TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to verify that the
> correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've written.
>
> static ip finder
>
> "ignite.enabled" : true,
> "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" : "localhost:1800",
> "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "127.0.0.1:47500",
> "ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "127.0.0.1:47501",
>
> kubernetties ip finder
>
> "ignite.enabled" : true,
> "ignite.communication-spi.local-port" : "localhost:1800",
> "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
> "ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace": "HelloWorld"
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the ignite-cache module in two
>> (one for a thick-client based connection and the other for thin client
>> connections), and would try to avoid this route if possible.
>>
>> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut developers can create a
>> generic
>> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite connectivity methods, which
>> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache implementation can decide what
>> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one, depends on the type
>> of a client you started with our auto-configuration feature). Let’s
>> discuss
>> all the existing issues here and jump on another call to finalize a
>> solution if needed.
>>
>> Denis
>>
>> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Michael,
>> >
>> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went ahead and pushed some
>> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those changes do some
>> minor
>> > tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration class and add Static
>> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration class. The
>> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think we'll figure how to
>> > modify the test on the call today.
>> >
>> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure IgniteCaches via the
>> Micronaut
>> > configuration. If an application needs to create any caches, it can do
>> this
>> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
>> >
>> > -
>> > Denis
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that these can be
>> > provided through a factory.
>> >
>> > @Bean
>> > @Named("default")
>> > @Primary
>> > public IgniteConfiguration
>> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration configuration,
>> >
>> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration> cacheConfigurations,
>> >
>> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
>> >
>> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration> executorConfigurations,
>> >
>> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
>> > Optional<CollisionSpi>
>> collisionSpi,
>> >
>> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
>> > Collection<FailoverSpi>
>> failoverSpis,
>> > @ConsistencyId
>> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
>> > @IgniteLifecycle
>> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
>> > configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
>> CacheConfiguration[0]))
>> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new PluginProvider[0]))
>> > .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
>> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
>> > .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
>> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new FailoverSpi[0]))
>> > .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
>> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
>> > .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
>> > .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new LifecycleBean[0]))
>> > .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
>> > return configuration;
>> > }
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks like now.
>> >
>> > ignite:
>> > enabled: true
>> > comunication-spi:
>> > local-port: 5555
>> > cache-configurations:
>> > - accounts:
>> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
>> > key-type: String
>> > - books:
>> > table-name: BOOKS
>> > key-type: String
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its static and nested
>> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not work in this
>> case. So
>> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the environment. This is a
>> > working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it would have to be
>> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration. DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
>> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum working setup and
>> then
>> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
>> >
>> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "dataStorageConfiguration", excludes =
>> "dataRegionConfigurations")
>> > final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration = new
>> DataStorageConfiguration();
>> >
>> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
>> > public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
>> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>> > DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration = new
>> DataRegionConfiguration();
>> >
>> > public DataRegionConfiguration getDataRegionConfiguration() {
>> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Dennis,
>> >
>> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it because that
>> didn't
>> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
>> ClientConfiguration
>> > is a final class so that can't be extended from. This PR is starting to
>> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the documentation.
>> The
>> > other thing I did was add a flag for the associated cache to use
>> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see If I can work
>> out
>> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can provide your
>> own
>> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
>> >
>> > [image: image.png]
>> >
>> >
>> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Michael,
>> >
>> > Thanks, for verifying.
>> >
>> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
>> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are
>> just
>> > > placed into wrapper classes.
>> >
>> >
>> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default configuration for
>> its
>> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast core:
>> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>> > master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
>> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
>> >
>> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their Micronaut's
>> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following configuration
>> > parameteres:
>> >
>> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the parent
>> ClientConfig
>> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes = {"properties",
>> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
>> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig, SocketOptions
>> properties
>> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be inherited as
>> > above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder manually.
>> >
>> > As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and here is a
>> > final list of configuration properties:
>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>> >
>> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
>> >
>> > Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's start with
>> the
>> > thin client. It's much simpler.
>> >
>> >
>> > > yea, will need to
>> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no
>> way
>> > a
>> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that
>> out
>> > > yet.
>> >
>> >
>> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me know if you
>> need
>> > me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
>> >
>> >
>> > -
>> > Denis
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Dennis,
>> > >
>> > > This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
>> > >
>> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>> > main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>> > java
>> > > and
>> > >
>> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>> >
>> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
>> > >
>> > > test cases:
>> > >
>> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
>> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
>> > test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
>> > >
>> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
>> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are
>> just
>> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
>> ConfigurationProperty
>> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the
>> documentation is
>> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think this will
>> > work
>> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest @EachProperty in a
>> > single
>> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how stuff gets
>> > resolved
>> > > (https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938).
>> so
>> > the
>> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a first working
>> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea, will need
>> to
>> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no
>> way
>> > a
>> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that
>> out
>> > > yet.
>> > >
>> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Michael,
>> > > >
>> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration specificities. What
>> > > confused
>> > > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration in Micronaut
>> > looks
>> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former automates a
>> lot
>> > > with
>> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default Spring
>> Boot
>> > > > configuration looks
>> > > > <
>> > > >
>> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
>> > modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
>> > main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
>> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
>> > > > >
>> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible
>> property
>> > of
>> > > an
>> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
>> > > > <
>> > > >
>> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>> > > > >.
>> > > > The upside of the reflection.
>> > > >
>> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would suggest.
>> > > >
>> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that *extends*
>> > Ignite's
>> > > > ClientConfiguration
>> > > > <
>> > > >
>> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>> > ClientConfiguration.java
>> > > > >.
>> > > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
>> > > ClientConfiguration
>> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you were
>> doing
>> > > > that
>> > > > before I joined the review)
>> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of custom
>> > > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
>> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
>> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
>> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
>> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
>> > > >
>> > > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we support
>> another
>> > > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is created
>> > > > programmatically in the source code and the integration uses that
>> bean
>> > to
>> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
>> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set the
>> > properties
>> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the ClientConfiguration
>> bean
>> > is
>> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
>> > > > <
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
>> > programmatically
>> > > > >and
>> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
>> > > >
>> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
>> > > >
>> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous configuration
>> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
>> > > > <
>> > > >
>> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>> > IgniteConfiguration.java
>> > > > >
>> > > > .
>> > > >
>> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most frequently
>> used
>> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems reasonable
>> if
>> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's IgniteConfiguration
>> (so
>> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types). Based on
>> my
>> > > > experience, I would add the following settings of custom
>> non-primitive
>> > > > types:
>> > > >
>> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
>> > > > <
>> > > >
>> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>> >
>> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
>> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
>> > > > >
>> > > > with
>> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be done easily,
>> > right,
>> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the beginning, I
>> > would
>> > > > only
>> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
>> > > > <
>> > > >
>> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
>> > spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
>> > > > >
>> > > > and
>> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
>> > > > <
>> > > >
>> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>> > 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
>> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
>> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
>> > > > >via
>> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
>> > > > <
>> > > >
>> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
>> > > > >
>> > > > including
>> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
>> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
>> > > > <
>> > > >
>> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
>> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
>> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
>> > > > >
>> > > > with
>> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm assuming that
>> we
>> > can
>> > > > do
>> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through @ConfigurationBuilder
>> > > > (include)
>> > > > or inheritence.
>> > > >
>> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
>> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to create an
>> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to initialize
>> an
>> > > > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
>> > > >
>> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing something.
>> > > > -
>> > > > Denis
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network
>> options
>> > > for
>> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something
>> similar to
>> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [1]
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
>> > > > > [2]
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
>> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Let me know what you think.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > Saikat
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation. You
>> can
>> > > ask
>> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
>> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
>> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
>> > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for
>> > > > EachProperty
>> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the current
>> > > > existing
>> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are
>> setup.
>> > > > There
>> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been
>> > pretty
>> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these annotations
>> > work
>> > > > in
>> > > > > > practice.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Michael,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite
>> > > > instances
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a
>> single
>> > > > > instance
>> > > > > > > only.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration
>> matters
>> > of
>> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could
>> you
>> > > > > > recommend
>> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration
>> > > specifies
>> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
>> > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the
>> > > communicationSpi,
>> > > > > so
>> > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > >
>> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
>> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much
>> like
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
>> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
>> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just
>> > > allowing
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > > single
>> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot
>> configuration:
>> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
>> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the
>> > default
>> > > > use
>> > > > > > case
>> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as
>> follows:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > ignite:
>> > > > > > > > enable true
>> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
>> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
>> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
>> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
>> > > > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
>> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
>> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
>> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
>> > > > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > > > - ...
>> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
>> > > > > > > > enable: false
>> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of
>> > something
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
>> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <
>> dmagda@apache.org
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Michael,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is
>> used
>> > > by
>> > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything
>> but
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the
>> > configuration
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > > present.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we
>> > shouldn't
>> > > > > bother
>> > > > > > > > about
>> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I
>> said
>> > > > > before,
>> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is
>> > > designed
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly
>> > think
>> > > > of a
>> > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot
>> up
>> > > > several
>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite
>> > > > instance
>> > > > > > per
>> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will
>> > > > > significantly
>> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If
>> > > anybody
>> > > > > > needs
>> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them
>> > > manually.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > By default the
>> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client
>> > > DynamicCache
>> > > > > if
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply
>> > disallow
>> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a
>> > thick
>> > > or
>> > > > > > thin
>> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already
>> started,
>> > > then
>> > > > > > throw
>> > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and
>> vice
>> > > > > versa).
>> > > > > > > As
>> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut,
>> I
>> > > would
>> > > > > > > > recommend
>> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a
>> > serverless
>> > > > > > function
>> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while
>> for
>> > > > > > > > micro-services
>> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition
>> > was
>> > > > > mainly
>> > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
>> > > relevant.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about
>> > > Micronaut.
>> > > > > Let
>> > > > > > me
>> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
>> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
>> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below
>> > > without
>> > > > > > having
>> > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you
>> > getting a
>> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > ignite:
>> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
>> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
>> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
>> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
>> > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together
>> > along
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little
>> > > > > complicated
>> > > > > > > > but I
>> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > >
>> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean
>> definition
>> > > was
>> > > > > > > mainly
>> > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
>> > > > relevant.
>> > > > > > Will
>> > > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might
>> get a
>> > > > > little
>> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
>> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
>> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass
>> > that
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > > somewhere
>> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
>> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
>> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
>> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
>> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is
>> > > > declared. I
>> > > > > > > think
>> > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If
>> i'm
>> > > not
>> > > > > > > > mistaken
>> > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide
>> the
>> > > name
>> > > > > > since
>> > > > > > > > > that is
>> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under
>> > > > EachProperty.
>> > > > > > The
>> > > > > > > > > name is
>> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also
>> the
>> > > same
>> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
>> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use
>> the
>> > > > > primary
>> > > > > > > bean
>> > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache
>> instance
>> > > > active
>> > > > > > at a
>> > > > > > > > > time.
>> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is
>> > used
>> > > > by
>> > > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything
>> > but
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the
>> > > configuration
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > present.
>> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use
>> one
>> > > > > > instance
>> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works
>> again.
>> > By
>> > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client
>> > > > DynamicCache
>> > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
>> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
>> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
>> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
>> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
>> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
>> > > > > instances.
>> > > > > > > > This
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a
>> thick
>> > > or
>> > > > > thin
>> > > > > > > > > client
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can
>> > > utilize
>> > > > > all
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > CPUs
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the
>> > ability
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > configure
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I
>> understand,
>> > > > > > Micronaut
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
>> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
>> > > > > > > > > property,
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are?
>> By
>> > > > > looking
>> > > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>> > > > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
>> > > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that
>> > Micronaut
>> > > > > could
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and
>> prepared
>> > > these
>> > > > > > > > > properties
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>> > > > > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the
>> thin
>> > > > > client
>> > > > > > > in a
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
>> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some
>> > settings
>> > > > such
>> > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this
>> > sound
>> > > > > > > accurate
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just
>> > swap
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > "path"
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
>> > > IgniteConfiguration.
>> > > > > > Then
>> > > > > > > > let
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults
>> and
>> > > > > allow a
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
>> discoverySPI.ipFinder
>> > > or
>> > > > > > memory
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
>> > IgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > defaults
>> > > > > > > > > here
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>> > > > > > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
>> > > > > instances.
>> > > > > > > > This
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I
>> was
>> > > > > > originally
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite
>> > > instance
>> > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > found
>> > > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what
>> > > > defaults
>> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > set
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items
>> can't
>> > > be
>> > > > > > > covered
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
>> > @ConfigurationProperty
>> > > > can
>> > > > > > > only
>> > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have
>> > > > multiple
>> > > > > > > > > factories
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets
>> overwhelming.
>> > > In
>> > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more
>> ideal
>> > in
>> > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't
>> be
>> > > able
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > cover
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default:
>> > > > > > address:
>> > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
>> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
>> > > > > > > "
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot
>> documentation:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
>> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki
>> section
>> > and
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > current
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > configuration/
>> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following
>> changes:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
>> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>> > > > as
>> > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > > > done
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
>> > > > > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
>> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the
>> > > developers
>> > > > > > might
>> > > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
>> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to
>> > the
>> > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > clients
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and
>> "path".
>> > I
>> > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > > replace
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that
>> instantiates
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we
>> do
>> > > that,
>> > > > > > then
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
>> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the
>> Ignite
>> > > > Spring
>> > > > > > > Boot
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible,
>> > then I
>> > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > > rework
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly,
>> > taking
>> > > > our
>> > > > > > > Spring
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>> > > > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version
>> of
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > configuration/
>> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename
>> > > > > "configuration"
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can
>> pass
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format
>> below:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get
>> > > > wrapped
>> > > > > > > into a
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the
>> > > > relevant
>> > > > > > > > sections
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with
>> the
>> > > > methods
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > get
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from.
>> Hopefully
>> > > > this
>> > > > > > > helps.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but
>> this
>> > > can
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > changed
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By
>> default
>> > it
>> > > > uses
>> > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>> > interceptor/
>> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and
>> > how
>> > > > this
>> > > > > > > could
>> > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a
>> put if
>> > > the
>> > > > > > value
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return
>> is
>> > > null
>> > > > > > else
>> > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my
>> code
>> > > > > because I
>> > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that
>> closer
>> > > and
>> > > > > > write
>> > > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed
>> by
>> > > the
>> > > > > key.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using
>> > > > > @CachePut,
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations
>> > and I
>> > > > was
>> > > > > > > > trying
>> > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what
>> would
>> > be
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > underlying
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those
>> > > operations
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below
>> method
>> > > > then
>> > > > > > how
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
>> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
>> > 0
>> > > })
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael
>> Pollind
>> > <
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean
>> > this
>> > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into
>> > multiple
>> > > > > > > modules.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also
>> > have
>> > > > > > > > ignite-data
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly
>> > but
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > basic
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API
>> > > described
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the
>> > moment
>> > > > I'm
>> > > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how
>> that
>> > > > would
>> > > > > > fit
>> > > > > > > > > into
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity
>> > but
>> > > > I'm
>> > > > > > sure
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate
>> > module
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this
>> > > module
>> > > > > also
>> > > > > > > > has a
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and
>> SyncCache
>> > > are
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > two
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two
>> ways to
>> > > > > define
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache
>> > and
>> > > > > > > SyncCache
>> > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use
>> the
>> > > > name
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the
>> > > > > > > documentation
>> > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you
>> want
>> > and
>> > > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> -
>> Denis
>>
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
yea, I'm not sure about ignite-cache config. splitting it into two modules
seems kind of overly complicated, but I also don't really like the random
boolean flag. here is the tweaks from the config your provider:
https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/pull/2
kind of strange that there are not getters for the
TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder but there is enough to verify that the
correct ipfinder was set from the unit test i've written.
static ip finder
"ignite.enabled" : true,
"ignite.communication-spi.local-port" : "localhost:1800",
"ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
"ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[0]": "127.0.0.1:47500",
"ignite.discovery-spi.static-ip-finder.addresses[1]": "127.0.0.1:47501",
kubernetties ip finder
"ignite.enabled" : true,
"ignite.communication-spi.local-port" : "localhost:1800",
"ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.enabled" : "true",
"ignite.discovery-spi.kubernetes-ip-finder.namespace": "HelloWorld"
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I was thinking over the idea of splitting the ignite-cache module in two
> (one for a thick-client based connection and the other for thin client
> connections), and would try to avoid this route if possible.
>
> With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut developers can create a generic
> implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite connectivity methods, which
> is good. While internally, the ignite-cache implementation can decide what
> Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one, depends on the type
> of a client you started with our auto-configuration feature). Let’s discuss
> all the existing issues here and jump on another call to finalize a
> solution if needed.
>
> Denis
>
> On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Michael,
> >
> > Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went ahead and pushed some
> > changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those changes do some
> minor
> > tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration class and add Static
> > with Kubernetes IP finders to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration class. The
> > IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think we'll figure how to
> > modify the test on the call today.
> >
> > Also, let's decide if we want to configure IgniteCaches via the Micronaut
> > configuration. If an application needs to create any caches, it can do
> this
> > dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that these can be
> > provided through a factory.
> >
> > @Bean
> > @Named("default")
> > @Primary
> > public IgniteConfiguration
> igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration configuration,
> >
> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration> cacheConfigurations,
> >
> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
> >
> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration> executorConfigurations,
> >
> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
> > Optional<CollisionSpi>
> collisionSpi,
> >
> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
> > Collection<FailoverSpi>
> failoverSpis,
> > @ConsistencyId
> Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
> > @IgniteLifecycle
> Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
> > configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
> CacheConfiguration[0]))
> > .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new PluginProvider[0]))
> > .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
> ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
> > .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
> > .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new FailoverSpi[0]))
> > .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new
> LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
> > .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
> > .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new LifecycleBean[0]))
> > .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
> > return configuration;
> > }
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > here is an updated example what the yaml looks like now.
> >
> > ignite:
> > enabled: true
> > comunication-spi:
> > local-port: 5555
> > cache-configurations:
> > - accounts:
> > table-name: ACCOUNTS
> > key-type: String
> > - books:
> > table-name: BOOKS
> > key-type: String
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its static and nested
> > in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not work in this case.
> So
> > DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the environment. This is a
> > working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it would have to be
> > setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration. DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
> > and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum working setup and then
> > add in the missing configurations as we go?
> >
> > @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "dataStorageConfiguration", excludes =
> "dataRegionConfigurations")
> > final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration = new
> DataStorageConfiguration();
> >
> > @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
> > public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration = new
> DataRegionConfiguration();
> >
> > public DataRegionConfiguration getDataRegionConfiguration() {
> > return dataRegionConfiguration;
> > }
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Dennis,
> >
> > oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it because that
> didn't
> > occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
> ClientConfiguration
> > is a final class so that can't be extended from. This PR is starting to
> > shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the documentation.
> The
> > other thing I did was add a flag for the associated cache to use
> > micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see If I can work out
> > something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can provide your
> own
> > bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
> >
> > [image: image.png]
> >
> >
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > Thanks, for verifying.
> >
> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are
> just
> > > placed into wrapper classes.
> >
> >
> > Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default configuration for
> its
> > thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast core:
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
> > HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
> >
> > Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their Micronaut's
> > HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following configuration
> > parameteres:
> >
> > - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the parent
> ClientConfig
> > class. They do this by adding this - *includes = {"properties",
> > "instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
> > - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig, SocketOptions properties
> > (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be inherited as
> > above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder manually.
> >
> > As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and here is a
> > final list of configuration properties:
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
> >
> > Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's start with the
> > thin client. It's much simpler.
> >
> >
> > > yea, will need to
> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no
> way
> > a
> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that out
> > > yet.
> >
> >
> > That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me know if you need
> > me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
> >
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dennis,
> > >
> > > This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > java
> > > and
> > >
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> >
> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
> > >
> > > test cases:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> > 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> > test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
> > >
> > > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> > > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are
> just
> > > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
> ConfigurationProperty
> > > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the documentation
> is
> > > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think this will
> > work
> > > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest @EachProperty in a
> > single
> > > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how stuff gets
> > resolved
> > > (https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938). so
> > the
> > > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a first working
> > > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea, will need to
> > > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no
> way
> > a
> > > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that out
> > > yet.
> > >
> > > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael,
> > > >
> > > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration specificities. What
> > > confused
> > > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration in Micronaut
> > looks
> > > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former automates a lot
> > > with
> > > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default Spring Boot
> > > > configuration looks
> > > > <
> > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
> > modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
> > main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
> > IgniteClientConfigurer.java
> > > > >
> > > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible property
> > of
> > > an
> > > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
> > > > <
> > > >
> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > >.
> > > > The upside of the reflection.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would suggest.
> > > >
> > > > *Ignite Thin Client*
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that *extends*
> > Ignite's
> > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > <
> > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > ClientConfiguration.java
> > > > >.
> > > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
> > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you were
> doing
> > > > that
> > > > before I joined the review)
> > > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of custom
> > > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
> > > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
> > > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
> > > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
> > > >
> > > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we support another
> > > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is created
> > > > programmatically in the source code and the integration uses that
> bean
> > to
> > > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
> > > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set the
> > properties
> > > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the ClientConfiguration bean
> > is
> > > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
> > programmatically
> > > > >and
> > > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
> > > >
> > > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous configuration
> > > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
> > > > <
> > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > >
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most frequently
> used
> > > > configuration parameters and add them to the
> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems reasonable
> if
> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's IgniteConfiguration
> (so
> > > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types). Based on
> my
> > > > experience, I would add the following settings of custom
> non-primitive
> > > > types:
> > > >
> > > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
> > > > <
> > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> >
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
> > TcpDiscoverySpi.java
> > > > >
> > > > with
> > > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be done easily,
> > right,
> > > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the beginning, I
> > would
> > > > only
> > > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
> > > > <
> > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
> > > > >
> > > > and
> > > > KubernetesIpFinder
> > > > <
> > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
> > ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
> > TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
> > > > >via
> > > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > > - DataStorageConfiguration
> > > > <
> > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > DataStorageConfiguration.java
> > > > >
> > > > including
> > > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
> > > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
> > > > <
> > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> > 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> > spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
> > > > >
> > > > with
> > > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm assuming that we
> > can
> > > > do
> > > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > > (include)
> > > > or inheritence.
> > > >
> > > > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to create an
> > > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to initialize an
> > > > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
> > > >
> > > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing something.
> > > > -
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Michael, Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network
> options
> > > for
> > > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something similar
> to
> > > > > configure CommunicationSpi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> > > > > [2]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> > snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me know what you think.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Saikat
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation. You
> can
> > > ask
> > > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> > > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> > > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for
> > > > EachProperty
> > > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the current
> > > > existing
> > > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are
> setup.
> > > > There
> > > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been
> > pretty
> > > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these annotations
> > work
> > > > in
> > > > > > practice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite
> > > > instances
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a single
> > > > > instance
> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration matters
> > of
> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could
> you
> > > > > > recommend
> > > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration
> > > specifies
> > > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the
> > > communicationSpi,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much
> like
> > > the
> > > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just
> > > allowing
> > > > a
> > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot
> configuration:
> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the
> > default
> > > > use
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as
> follows:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > > > enable true
> > > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > > > > > > > communication-spi:
> > > > > > > > local-port: 5555
> > > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > cache-configurations:
> > > > > > > > - name: accounts
> > > > > > > > queryEntities:
> > > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > - ...
> > > > > > > > ignite-thin:
> > > > > > > > enable: false
> > > > > > > > instance-name: name
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of
> > something
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is
> used
> > > by
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything
> but
> > > the
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the
> > configuration
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we
> > shouldn't
> > > > > bother
> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I
> said
> > > > > before,
> > > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is
> > > designed
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly
> > think
> > > > of a
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot up
> > > > several
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite
> > > > instance
> > > > > > per
> > > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will
> > > > > significantly
> > > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If
> > > anybody
> > > > > > needs
> > > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them
> > > manually.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > By default the
> > > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client
> > > DynamicCache
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > would be ok?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply
> > disallow
> > > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a
> > thick
> > > or
> > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already started,
> > > then
> > > > > > throw
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and
> vice
> > > > > versa).
> > > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut, I
> > > would
> > > > > > > > recommend
> > > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a
> > serverless
> > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while for
> > > > > > > > micro-services
> > > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition
> > was
> > > > > mainly
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
> > > relevant.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about
> > > Micronaut.
> > > > > Let
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > private final String name;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below
> > > without
> > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you
> > getting a
> > > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > > > > name: some_name
> > > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
> > > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together
> > along
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little
> > > > > complicated
> > > > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean
> definition
> > > was
> > > > > > > mainly
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
> > > > relevant.
> > > > > > Will
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might
> get a
> > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass
> > that
> > > to
> > > > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> > > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
> > > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is
> > > > declared. I
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If
> i'm
> > > not
> > > > > > > > mistaken
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the
> > > name
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > that is
> > > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under
> > > > EachProperty.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > name is
> > > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also
> the
> > > same
> > > > > > > > > qualifier for
> > > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use
> the
> > > > > primary
> > > > > > > bean
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance
> > > > active
> > > > > > at a
> > > > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is
> > used
> > > > by
> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything
> > but
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the
> > > configuration
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use
> one
> > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again.
> > By
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client
> > > > DynamicCache
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
> > > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > > > > >>> ....
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
> > > > > instances.
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a
> thick
> > > or
> > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > >>>> per
> > > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can
> > > utilize
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > CPUs
> > > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the
> > ability
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > configure
> > > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I
> understand,
> > > > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
> > > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > > > > > > > property,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> right?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are?
> By
> > > > > looking
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
> > > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > > >>>> property
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that
> > Micronaut
> > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
> > > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared
> > > these
> > > > > > > > > properties
> > > > > > > > > >>>> table
> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the
> thin
> > > > > client
> > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
> > > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
> > > > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some
> > settings
> > > > such
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this
> > sound
> > > > > > > accurate
> > > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just
> > swap
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > "path"
> > > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
> > > IgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > > Then
> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults
> and
> > > > > allow a
> > > > > > > > > >>>> developer
> > > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
> discoverySPI.ipFinder
> > > or
> > > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
> > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > defaults
> > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> .
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> -
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
> > > > > instances.
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was
> > > > > > originally
> > > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite
> > > instance
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > found
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what
> > > > defaults
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items
> can't
> > > be
> > > > > > > covered
> > > > > > > > > >>>> with how
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
> > @ConfigurationProperty
> > > > can
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have
> > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > > factories
> > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets
> overwhelming.
> > > In
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be
> > > able
> > > > to
> > > > > > > cover
> > > > > > > > > >>>> enough
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default:
> > > > > > address:
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
> > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot
> documentation:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > version
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > configuration/
> > > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following
> changes:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > > as
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > > > > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the
> > > developers
> > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to
> > the
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > clients
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and
> "path".
> > I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that
> instantiates
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do
> > > that,
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > > > >>>> straight
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > in
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the
> Ignite
> > > > Spring
> > > > > > > Boot
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible,
> > then I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > rework
> > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly,
> > taking
> > > > our
> > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version
> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > configuration/
> > > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename
> > > > > "configuration"
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can
> pass
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format
> below:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get
> > > > wrapped
> > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the
> > > > relevant
> > > > > > > > sections
> > > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > code
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the
> > > > methods
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > called
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from.
> Hopefully
> > > > this
> > > > > > > helps.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> The key
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > is
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but
> this
> > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default
> > it
> > > > uses
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > interceptor/
> > > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and
> > how
> > > > this
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put
> if
> > > the
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return
> is
> > > null
> > > > > > else
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code
> > > > > because I
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that
> closer
> > > and
> > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed
> by
> > > the
> > > > > key.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using
> > > > > @CachePut,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations
> > and I
> > > > was
> > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would
> > be
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those
> > > operations
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below
> method
> > > > then
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> result
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name,
> {
> > 0
> > > })
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael
> Pollind
> > <
> > > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean
> > this
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > >>>> to be
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into
> > multiple
> > > > > > > modules.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also
> > have
> > > > > > > > ignite-data
> > > > > > > > > >>>> but
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > that
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly
> > but
> > > > the
> > > > > > > basic
> > > > > > > > > >>>> config is
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API
> > > described
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the
> > moment
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how
> that
> > > > would
> > > > > > fit
> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity
> > but
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > >>>> something
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate
> > module
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this
> > > module
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and
> SyncCache
> > > are
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways
> to
> > > > > define
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache
> > and
> > > > > > > SyncCache
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > >>>> they
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use
> the
> > > > name
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> instance
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the
> > > > > > > documentation
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >>>> believe
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want
> > and
> > > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> -
> Denis
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Michael,
I was thinking over the idea of splitting the ignite-cache module in two
(one for a thick-client based connection and the other for thin client
connections), and would try to avoid this route if possible.
With the @CacheConfig annotation, Micronaut developers can create a generic
implementation that is agnostic to the Ignite connectivity methods, which
is good. While internally, the ignite-cache implementation can decide what
Ignite Cache API to use (the thick or thin client one, depends on the type
of a client you started with our auto-configuration feature). Let’s discuss
all the existing issues here and jump on another call to finalize a
solution if needed.
Denis
On Monday, August 24, 2020, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went ahead and pushed some
> changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those changes do some minor
> tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration class and add Static
> with Kubernetes IP finders to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration class. The
> IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think we'll figure how to
> modify the test on the call today.
>
> Also, let's decide if we want to configure IgniteCaches via the Micronaut
> configuration. If an application needs to create any caches, it can do this
> dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that these can be
> provided through a factory.
>
> @Bean
> @Named("default")
> @Primary
> public IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration configuration,
> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration> cacheConfigurations,
> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration> executorConfigurations,
> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
> Optional<CollisionSpi> collisionSpi,
> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
> Collection<FailoverSpi> failoverSpis,
> @ConsistencyId Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
> @IgniteLifecycle Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
> configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new CacheConfiguration[0]))
> .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new PluginProvider[0]))
> .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
> .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
> .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new FailoverSpi[0]))
> .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
> .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
> .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new LifecycleBean[0]))
> .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
> return configuration;
> }
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> here is an updated example what the yaml looks like now.
>
> ignite:
> enabled: true
> comunication-spi:
> local-port: 5555
> cache-configurations:
> - accounts:
> table-name: ACCOUNTS
> key-type: String
> - books:
> table-name: BOOKS
> key-type: String
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its static and nested
> in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not work in this case. So
> DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the environment. This is a
> working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it would have to be
> setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration. DefaultDataStorageConfiguration
> and a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum working setup and then
> add in the missing configurations as we go?
>
> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "dataStorageConfiguration", excludes = "dataRegionConfigurations")
> final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration = new DataStorageConfiguration();
>
> @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
> public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration = new DataRegionConfiguration();
>
> public DataRegionConfiguration getDataRegionConfiguration() {
> return dataRegionConfiguration;
> }
> }
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dennis,
>
> oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it because that didn't
> occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but ClientConfiguration
> is a final class so that can't be extended from. This PR is starting to
> shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the documentation. The
> other thing I did was add a flag for the associated cache to use
> micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see If I can work out
> something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can provide your own
> bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> Thanks, for verifying.
>
> I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are just
> > placed into wrapper classes.
>
>
> Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default configuration for its
> thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast core:
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/
> HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
>
> Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their Micronaut's
> HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following configuration
> parameteres:
>
> - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the parent ClientConfig
> class. They do this by adding this - *includes = {"properties",
> "instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
> - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig, SocketOptions properties
> (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be inherited as
> above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder manually.
>
> As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and here is a
> final list of configuration properties:
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
>
> Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's start with the
> thin client. It's much simpler.
>
>
> > yea, will need to
> > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no way
> a
> > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that out
> > yet.
>
>
> That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me know if you need
> me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
>
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dennis,
> >
> > This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
> >
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> java
> > and
> >
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
> >
> > test cases:
> >
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/
> 3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/
> test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
> >
> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are just
> > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think ConfigurationProperty
> > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the documentation is
> > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think this will
> work
> > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest @EachProperty in a
> single
> > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how stuff gets
> resolved
> > (https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938). so
> the
> > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a first working
> > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea, will need to
> > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no way
> a
> > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that out
> > yet.
> >
> > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael,
> > >
> > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration specificities. What
> > confused
> > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration in Micronaut
> looks
> > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former automates a lot
> > with
> > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default Spring Boot
> > > configuration looks
> > > <
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/
> modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/
> main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/
> IgniteClientConfigurer.java
> > > >
> > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible property
> of
> > an
> > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
> > > <
> > >
> > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > >.
> > > The upside of the reflection.
> > >
> > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would suggest.
> > >
> > > *Ignite Thin Client*
> > >
> > >
> > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that *extends*
> Ignite's
> > > ClientConfiguration
> > > <
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> ClientConfiguration.java
> > > >.
> > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
> > ClientConfiguration
> > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you were doing
> > > that
> > > before I joined the review)
> > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of custom
> > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
> > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
> > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
> > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
> > >
> > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we support another
> > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is created
> > > programmatically in the source code and the integration uses that bean
> to
> > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
> > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set the
> properties
> > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the ClientConfiguration bean
> is
> > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
> > > <
> > >
> > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-
> programmatically
> > > >and
> > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
> > >
> > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
> > >
> > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous configuration
> > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
> > > <
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > >
> > > .
> > >
> > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most frequently used
> > > configuration parameters and add them to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems reasonable if
> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's IgniteConfiguration (so
> > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types). Based on my
> > > experience, I would add the following settings of custom non-primitive
> > > types:
> > >
> > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
> > > <
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/
> TcpDiscoverySpi.java
> > > >
> > > with
> > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be done easily,
> right,
> > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the beginning, I
> would
> > > only
> > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
> > > <
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
> > > >
> > > and
> > > KubernetesIpFinder
> > > <
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> 1700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/
> ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/
> TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
> > > >via
> > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > - DataStorageConfiguration
> > > <
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> DataStorageConfiguration.java
> > > >
> > > including
> > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
> > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
> > > <
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa17
> 1700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/
> spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
> > > >
> > > with
> > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm assuming that we
> can
> > > do
> > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > (include)
> > > or inheritence.
> > >
> > > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to create an
> > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to initialize an
> > > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
> > >
> > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing something.
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Michael, Denis
> > > >
> > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network options
> > for
> > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something similar to
> > > > configure CommunicationSpi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/
> snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
> > > >
> > > > Let me know what you think.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Saikat
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation. You can
> > ask
> > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for
> > > EachProperty
> > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the current
> > > existing
> > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are setup.
> > > There
> > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been
> pretty
> > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these annotations
> work
> > > in
> > > > > practice.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite
> > > instances
> > > > > is
> > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a single
> > > > instance
> > > > > > only.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration matters
> of
> > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could you
> > > > > recommend
> > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration
> > specifies
> > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the
> > communicationSpi,
> > > > so
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > >
> > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much like
> > the
> > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just
> > allowing
> > > a
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot configuration:
> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the
> default
> > > use
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as follows:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > > enable true
> > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > > > > > > communication-spi:
> > > > > > > local-port: 5555
> > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > cache-configurations:
> > > > > > > - name: accounts
> > > > > > > queryEntities:
> > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > - ...
> > > > > > > ignite-thin:
> > > > > > > enable: false
> > > > > > > instance-name: name
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of
> something
> > > > that
> > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used
> > by
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but
> > the
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the
> configuration
> > > is
> > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we
> shouldn't
> > > > bother
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I said
> > > > before,
> > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is
> > designed
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly
> think
> > > of a
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot up
> > > several
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite
> > > instance
> > > > > per
> > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will
> > > > significantly
> > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If
> > anybody
> > > > > needs
> > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them
> > manually.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By default the
> > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client
> > DynamicCache
> > > > if
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > would be ok?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply
> disallow
> > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a
> thick
> > or
> > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already started,
> > then
> > > > > throw
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and vice
> > > > versa).
> > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut, I
> > would
> > > > > > > recommend
> > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a
> serverless
> > > > > function
> > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while for
> > > > > > > micro-services
> > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition
> was
> > > > mainly
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
> > relevant.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about
> > Micronaut.
> > > > Let
> > > > > me
> > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > private final String name;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below
> > without
> > > > > having
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you
> getting a
> > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > > > name: some_name
> > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
> > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together
> along
> > > > with
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little
> > > > complicated
> > > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > >
> > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition
> > was
> > > > > > mainly
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
> > > relevant.
> > > > > Will
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might get a
> > > > little
> > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass
> that
> > to
> > > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
> > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
> > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is
> > > declared. I
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If i'm
> > not
> > > > > > > mistaken
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the
> > name
> > > > > since
> > > > > > > > that is
> > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under
> > > EachProperty.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > > name is
> > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the
> > same
> > > > > > > > qualifier for
> > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the
> > > > primary
> > > > > > bean
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance
> > > active
> > > > > at a
> > > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is
> used
> > > by
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything
> but
> > > the
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the
> > configuration
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use one
> > > > > instance
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again.
> By
> > > > > default
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client
> > > DynamicCache
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
> > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > > > >>> ....
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
> > > > instances.
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick
> > or
> > > > thin
> > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > >>>> per
> > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can
> > utilize
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > CPUs
> > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the
> ability
> > > to
> > > > > > > > configure
> > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I understand,
> > > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
> > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > > > > > > property,
> > > > > > > > >>>> right?
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By
> > > > looking
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > > > > > > >>>> >,
> > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
> > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> property
> > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that
> Micronaut
> > > > could
> > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
> > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared
> > these
> > > > > > > > properties
> > > > > > > > >>>> table
> > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> >.
> > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin
> > > > client
> > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
> > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
> > > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some
> settings
> > > such
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this
> sound
> > > > > > accurate
> > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just
> swap
> > > the
> > > > > > > "path"
> > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
> > IgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > Then
> > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and
> > > > allow a
> > > > > > > > >>>> developer
> > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder
> > or
> > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
> IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > defaults
> > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> .
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> -
> > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
> > > > instances.
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was
> > > > > originally
> > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
> > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite
> > instance
> > > > but
> > > > > > > found
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what
> > > defaults
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't
> > be
> > > > > > covered
> > > > > > > > >>>> with how
> > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
> @ConfigurationProperty
> > > can
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have
> > > multiple
> > > > > > > > factories
> > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming.
> > In
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >>>> situation
> > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal
> in
> > > this
> > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
> > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be
> > able
> > > to
> > > > > > cover
> > > > > > > > >>>> enough
> > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default:
> > > > > address:
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
> > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
> > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > >>>> > version
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> configuration/
> > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > as
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>> > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > > > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the
> > developers
> > > > > might
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to
> the
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > clients
> > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path".
> I
> > > > would
> > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do
> > that,
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
> > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> straight
> > > > > > > > >>>> > in
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite
> > > Spring
> > > > > > Boot
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible,
> then I
> > > > would
> > > > > > > > rework
> > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly,
> taking
> > > our
> > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> configuration/
> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename
> > > > "configuration"
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass
> > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format below:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get
> > > wrapped
> > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the
> > > relevant
> > > > > > > sections
> > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>> > code
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the
> > > methods
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > >>>> > called
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully
> > > this
> > > > > > helps.
> > > > > > > > >>>> The key
> > > > > > > > >>>> > is
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default
> it
> > > uses
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> interceptor/
> > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and
> how
> > > this
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if
> > the
> > > > > value
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is
> > null
> > > > > else
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code
> > > > because I
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer
> > and
> > > > > write
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by
> > the
> > > > key.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using
> > > > @CachePut,
> > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations
> and I
> > > was
> > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would
> be
> > > the
> > > > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those
> > operations
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below method
> > > then
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> result
> > > > > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
> 0
> > })
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind
> <
> > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean
> this
> > > > would
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > >>>> to be
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into
> multiple
> > > > > > modules.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also
> have
> > > > > > > ignite-data
> > > > > > > > >>>> but
> > > > > > > > >>>> > that
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly
> but
> > > the
> > > > > > basic
> > > > > > > > >>>> config is
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API
> > described
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the
> moment
> > > I'm
> > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that
> > > would
> > > > > fit
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity
> but
> > > I'm
> > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > >>>> something
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate
> module
> > > > that
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this
> > module
> > > > also
> > > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache
> > are
> > > > the
> > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to
> > > > define
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache
> and
> > > > > > SyncCache
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >>>> they
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the
> > > name
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> instance
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the
> > > > > > documentation
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >>>> believe
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want
> and
> > >
>
>
--
-
Denis
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Michael,
Great progress, thanks for your patience. I went ahead and pushed some
changes to your working branch. As you'll see, those changes do some minor
tweaks in the DefaultIgniteThinClientConfiguration class and add Static
with Kubernetes IP finders to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration class. The
IgniteConfigurationSpec fails for now, but I think we'll figure how to
modify the test on the call today.
Also, let's decide if we want to configure IgniteCaches via the Micronaut
configuration. If an application needs to create any caches, it can do this
dynamically after an Ignite instance is started.
-
Denis
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that these can be
> provided through a factory.
>
> @Bean
> @Named("default")
> @Primary
> public IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration configuration,
> Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration> cacheConfigurations,
> Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
> Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration> executorConfigurations,
> Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
> Optional<CollisionSpi> collisionSpi,
> Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
> Collection<FailoverSpi> failoverSpis,
> @ConsistencyId Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
> @IgniteLifecycle Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
> configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new CacheConfiguration[0]))
> .setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new PluginProvider[0]))
> .setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
> .setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
> .setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new FailoverSpi[0]))
> .setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
> .setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
> .setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new LifecycleBean[0]))
> .setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
> return configuration;
> }
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> here is an updated example what the yaml looks like now.
>>
>> ignite:
>> enabled: true
>> comunication-spi:
>> local-port: 5555
>> cache-configurations:
>> - accounts:
>> table-name: ACCOUNTS
>> key-type: String
>> - books:
>> table-name: BOOKS
>> key-type: String
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its static and nested
>>> in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not work in this case. So
>>> DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the environment. This is a
>>> working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it would have to be
>>> setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration. DefaultDataStorageConfiguration and
>>> a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum working setup and then add
>>> in the missing configurations as we go?
>>>
>>> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "dataStorageConfiguration", excludes = "dataRegionConfigurations")
>>> final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration = new DataStorageConfiguration();
>>>
>>> @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
>>> public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
>>> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>> DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration = new DataRegionConfiguration();
>>>
>>> public DataRegionConfiguration getDataRegionConfiguration() {
>>> return dataRegionConfiguration;
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dennis,
>>>>
>>>> oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it because that
>>>> didn't occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
>>>> ClientConfiguration is a final class so that can't be extended from. This
>>>> PR is starting to shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the
>>>> documentation. The other thing I did was add a flag for the associated
>>>> cache to use micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see If I
>>>> can work out something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can
>>>> provide your own bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
>>>>
>>>> [image: image.png]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, for verifying.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
>>>>> > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are
>>>>> just
>>>>> > placed into wrapper classes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default configuration for
>>>>> its
>>>>> thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast core:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
>>>>>
>>>>> Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their Micronaut's
>>>>> HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following configuration
>>>>> parameteres:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the parent
>>>>> ClientConfig
>>>>> class. They do this by adding this - *includes = {"properties",
>>>>> "instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
>>>>> - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig, SocketOptions
>>>>> properties
>>>>> (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be inherited
>>>>> as
>>>>> above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder manually.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and here is a
>>>>> final list of configuration properties:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's start with
>>>>> the
>>>>> thin client. It's much simpler.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > yea, will need to
>>>>> > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no
>>>>> way a
>>>>> > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that
>>>>> out
>>>>> > yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me know if you
>>>>> need
>>>>> me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Denis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Dennis,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>> > and
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
>>>>> >
>>>>> > test cases:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
>>>>> > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are
>>>>> just
>>>>> > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
>>>>> ConfigurationProperty
>>>>> > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the
>>>>> documentation is
>>>>> > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think this
>>>>> will work
>>>>> > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest @EachProperty in a
>>>>> single
>>>>> > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how stuff gets
>>>>> resolved
>>>>> > (https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938).
>>>>> so the
>>>>> > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a first
>>>>> working
>>>>> > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea, will need
>>>>> to
>>>>> > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no
>>>>> way a
>>>>> > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that
>>>>> out
>>>>> > yet.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > Michael,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration specificities. What
>>>>> > confused
>>>>> > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration in
>>>>> Micronaut looks
>>>>> > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former automates a
>>>>> lot
>>>>> > with
>>>>> > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default Spring
>>>>> Boot
>>>>> > > configuration looks
>>>>> > > <
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/IgniteClientConfigurer.java
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible
>>>>> property of
>>>>> > an
>>>>> > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
>>>>> > > <
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>> > > >.
>>>>> > > The upside of the reflection.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would suggest.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > *Ignite Thin Client*
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that *extends*
>>>>> Ignite's
>>>>> > > ClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > <
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/ClientConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > >.
>>>>> > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
>>>>> > ClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you were
>>>>> doing
>>>>> > > that
>>>>> > > before I joined the review)
>>>>> > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of custom
>>>>> > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
>>>>> > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
>>>>> > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>>> > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
>>>>> > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we support
>>>>> another
>>>>> > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is created
>>>>> > > programmatically in the source code and the integration uses that
>>>>> bean to
>>>>> > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
>>>>> > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set the
>>>>> properties
>>>>> > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the ClientConfiguration
>>>>> bean is
>>>>> > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
>>>>> > > <
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-programmatically
>>>>> > > >and
>>>>> > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous configuration
>>>>> > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
>>>>> > > <
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/IgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > .
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most frequently
>>>>> used
>>>>> > > configuration parameters and add them to the
>>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems
>>>>> reasonable if
>>>>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's
>>>>> IgniteConfiguration (so
>>>>> > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types). Based
>>>>> on my
>>>>> > > experience, I would add the following settings of custom
>>>>> non-primitive
>>>>> > > types:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
>>>>> > > <
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/TcpDiscoverySpi.java
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > with
>>>>> > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be done easily,
>>>>> right,
>>>>> > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the beginning,
>>>>> I would
>>>>> > > only
>>>>> > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
>>>>> > > <
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > and
>>>>> > > KubernetesIpFinder
>>>>> > > <
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
>>>>> > > >via
>>>>> > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>>> > > - DataStorageConfiguration
>>>>> > > <
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/DataStorageConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > including
>>>>> > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
>>>>> > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
>>>>> > > <
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > with
>>>>> > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm assuming that
>>>>> we can
>>>>> > > do
>>>>> > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>>> > > (include)
>>>>> > > or inheritence.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
>>>>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to create an
>>>>> > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to initialize
>>>>> an
>>>>> > > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing something.
>>>>> > > -
>>>>> > > Denis
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
>>>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > > Hi Michael, Denis
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network
>>>>> options
>>>>> > for
>>>>> > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something
>>>>> similar to
>>>>> > > > configure CommunicationSpi
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > [1]
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#ehcache
>>>>> > > > [2]
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Let me know what you think.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Regards,
>>>>> > > > Saikat
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation.
>>>>> You can
>>>>> > ask
>>>>> > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
>>>>> > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
>>>>> > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
>>>>> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for
>>>>> > > EachProperty
>>>>> > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the
>>>>> current
>>>>> > > existing
>>>>> > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are
>>>>> setup.
>>>>> > > There
>>>>> > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been
>>>>> pretty
>>>>> > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these
>>>>> annotations work
>>>>> > > in
>>>>> > > > > practice.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org
>>>>> >
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > Michael,
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite
>>>>> > > instances
>>>>> > > > > is
>>>>> > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a
>>>>> single
>>>>> > > > instance
>>>>> > > > > > only.
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration
>>>>> matters of
>>>>> > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could
>>>>> you
>>>>> > > > > recommend
>>>>> > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration
>>>>> > specifies
>>>>> > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > Denis
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
>>>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the
>>>>> > communicationSpi,
>>>>> > > > so
>>>>> > > > > > you
>>>>> > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
>>>>> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
>>>>> > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much
>>>>> like
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
>>>>> > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>> > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
>>>>> > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just
>>>>> > allowing
>>>>> > > a
>>>>> > > > > > single
>>>>> > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot
>>>>> configuration:
>>>>> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
>>>>> > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the
>>>>> default
>>>>> > > use
>>>>> > > > > case
>>>>> > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as
>>>>> follows:
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > ignite:
>>>>> > > > > > > enable true
>>>>> > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
>>>>> > > > > > > communication-spi:
>>>>> > > > > > > local-port: 5555
>>>>> > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
>>>>> > > > > > > ...
>>>>> > > > > > > cache-configurations:
>>>>> > > > > > > - name: accounts
>>>>> > > > > > > queryEntities:
>>>>> > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
>>>>> > > > > > > ...
>>>>> > > > > > > - ...
>>>>> > > > > > > ignite-thin:
>>>>> > > > > > > enable: false
>>>>> > > > > > > instance-name: name
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of
>>>>> something
>>>>> > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
>>>>> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > Michael,
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is
>>>>> used
>>>>> > by
>>>>> > > > > > default
>>>>> > > > > > > so
>>>>> > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything
>>>>> but
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > > > > > default
>>>>> > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the
>>>>> configuration
>>>>> > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > present.
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we
>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>> > > > bother
>>>>> > > > > > > about
>>>>> > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I
>>>>> said
>>>>> > > > before,
>>>>> > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is
>>>>> > designed
>>>>> > > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly
>>>>> think
>>>>> > > of a
>>>>> > > > > use
>>>>> > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot
>>>>> up
>>>>> > > several
>>>>> > > > > > > Ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite
>>>>> > > instance
>>>>> > > > > per
>>>>> > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will
>>>>> > > > significantly
>>>>> > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If
>>>>> > anybody
>>>>> > > > > needs
>>>>> > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them
>>>>> > manually.
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > By default the
>>>>> > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client
>>>>> > DynamicCache
>>>>> > > > if
>>>>> > > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > > would be ok?
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply
>>>>> disallow
>>>>> > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a
>>>>> thick
>>>>> > or
>>>>> > > > > thin
>>>>> > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already
>>>>> started,
>>>>> > then
>>>>> > > > > throw
>>>>> > > > > > an
>>>>> > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and
>>>>> vice
>>>>> > > > versa).
>>>>> > > > > > As
>>>>> > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to
>>>>> Micronaut, I
>>>>> > would
>>>>> > > > > > > recommend
>>>>> > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a
>>>>> serverless
>>>>> > > > > function
>>>>> > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while
>>>>> for
>>>>> > > > > > > micro-services
>>>>> > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean
>>>>> definition was
>>>>> > > > mainly
>>>>> > > > > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
>>>>> > relevant.
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about
>>>>> > Micronaut.
>>>>> > > > Let
>>>>> > > > > me
>>>>> > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
>>>>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > private final String name;
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>>> > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
>>>>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below
>>>>> > without
>>>>> > > > > having
>>>>> > > > > > > it
>>>>> > > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you
>>>>> getting a
>>>>> > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > ignite:
>>>>> > > > > > > > name: some_name
>>>>> > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
>>>>> > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
>>>>> > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
>>>>> > > > > > > > -
>>>>> > > > > > > > Denis
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw
>>>>> together along
>>>>> > > > with
>>>>> > > > > > some
>>>>> > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little
>>>>> > > > complicated
>>>>> > > > > > > but I
>>>>> > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean
>>>>> definition
>>>>> > was
>>>>> > > > > > mainly
>>>>> > > > > > > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
>>>>> > > relevant.
>>>>> > > > > Will
>>>>> > > > > > > > have
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might
>>>>> get a
>>>>> > > > little
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
>>>>> > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can
>>>>> pass that
>>>>> > to
>>>>> > > > > > > somewhere
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
>>>>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
>>>>> > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is
>>>>> > > declared. I
>>>>> > > > > > think
>>>>> > > > > > > > we
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders
>>>>> If i'm
>>>>> > not
>>>>> > > > > > > mistaken
>>>>> > > > > > > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide
>>>>> the
>>>>> > name
>>>>> > > > > since
>>>>> > > > > > > > that is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under
>>>>> > > EachProperty.
>>>>> > > > > The
>>>>> > > > > > > > name is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also
>>>>> the
>>>>> > same
>>>>> > > > > > > > qualifier for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > > primary
>>>>> > > > > > bean
>>>>> > > > > > > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache
>>>>> instance
>>>>> > > active
>>>>> > > > > at a
>>>>> > > > > > > > time.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean
>>>>> is used
>>>>> > > by
>>>>> > > > > > > default
>>>>> > > > > > > > so
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with
>>>>> anything but
>>>>> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > default
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the
>>>>> > configuration
>>>>> > > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > > present.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only
>>>>> use one
>>>>> > > > > instance
>>>>> > > > > > of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works
>>>>> again. By
>>>>> > > > > default
>>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client
>>>>> > > DynamicCache
>>>>> > > > > if
>>>>> > > > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> ....
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>>> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with
>>>>> multiple
>>>>> > > > instances.
>>>>> > > > > > > This
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a
>>>>> thick
>>>>> > or
>>>>> > > > thin
>>>>> > > > > > > > client
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> per
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can
>>>>> > utilize
>>>>> > > > all
>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > CPUs
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the
>>>>> ability
>>>>> > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > configure
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I
>>>>> understand,
>>>>> > > > > Micronaut
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
>>>>> > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
>>>>> > > > > > > > property,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> right?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults
>>>>> are? By
>>>>> > > > looking
>>>>> > > > > at
>>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
>>>>> > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> property
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that
>>>>> Micronaut
>>>>> > > > could
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and
>>>>> prepared
>>>>> > these
>>>>> > > > > > > > properties
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> table
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>>>> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the
>>>>> thin
>>>>> > > > client
>>>>> > > > > > in a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
>>>>> > > > > ClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some
>>>>> settings
>>>>> > > such
>>>>> > > > > as
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does
>>>>> this sound
>>>>> > > > > > accurate
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would
>>>>> just swap
>>>>> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > "path"
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
>>>>> > IgniteConfiguration.
>>>>> > > > > Then
>>>>> > > > > > > let
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration
>>>>> defaults and
>>>>> > > > allow a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> developer
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
>>>>> discoverySPI.ipFinder
>>>>> > or
>>>>> > > > > memory
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
>>>>> IgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > defaults
>>>>> > > > > > > > here
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>>>> > > > > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> .
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> -
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with
>>>>> multiple
>>>>> > > > instances.
>>>>> > > > > > > This
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I
>>>>> was
>>>>> > > > > originally
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite
>>>>> > instance
>>>>> > > > but
>>>>> > > > > > > found
>>>>> > > > > > > > I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So
>>>>> what
>>>>> > > defaults
>>>>> > > > > are
>>>>> > > > > > > set
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items
>>>>> can't
>>>>> > be
>>>>> > > > > > covered
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> with how
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
>>>>> @ConfigurationProperty
>>>>> > > can
>>>>> > > > > > only
>>>>> > > > > > > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have
>>>>> > > multiple
>>>>> > > > > > > > factories
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets
>>>>> overwhelming.
>>>>> > In
>>>>> > > > > this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> situation
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more
>>>>> ideal in
>>>>> > > this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't
>>>>> be
>>>>> > able
>>>>> > > to
>>>>> > > > > > cover
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> enough
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default:
>>>>> > > > > address:
>>>>> > > > > > > > -
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
>>>>> > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
>>>>> > > > > > "
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot
>>>>> documentation:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki
>>>>> section and
>>>>> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > current
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > version
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>>>> > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following
>>>>> changes:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
>>>>> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
>>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > as
>>>>> > > > > it's
>>>>> > > > > > > > done
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
>>>>> > > > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
>>>>> > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the
>>>>> > developers
>>>>> > > > > might
>>>>> > > > > > > need
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
>>>>> > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope
>>>>> to the
>>>>> > > > Ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > clients
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and
>>>>> "path". I
>>>>> > > > would
>>>>> > > > > > > > replace
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that
>>>>> instantiates
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we
>>>>> do
>>>>> > that,
>>>>> > > > > then
>>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
>>>>> > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> straight
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > in
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the
>>>>> Ignite
>>>>> > > Spring
>>>>> > > > > > Boot
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>> > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible,
>>>>> then I
>>>>> > > > would
>>>>> > > > > > > > rework
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly,
>>>>> taking
>>>>> > > our
>>>>> > > > > > Spring
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>>> > > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current
>>>>> version of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>>> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename
>>>>> > > > "configuration"
>>>>> > > > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can
>>>>> pass
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format
>>>>> below:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind
>>>>> <
>>>>> > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods
>>>>> get
>>>>> > > wrapped
>>>>> > > > > > into a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the
>>>>> > > relevant
>>>>> > > > > > > sections
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > code
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > methods
>>>>> > > > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > get
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > called
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from.
>>>>> Hopefully
>>>>> > > this
>>>>> > > > > > helps.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> The key
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but
>>>>> this
>>>>> > can
>>>>> > > > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > changed
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> if
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By
>>>>> default it
>>>>> > > uses
>>>>> > > > > > this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/
>>>>> > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on
>>>>> and how
>>>>> > > this
>>>>> > > > > > could
>>>>> > > > > > > > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a
>>>>> put if
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > > > > value
>>>>> > > > > > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> not
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the
>>>>> return is
>>>>> > null
>>>>> > > > > else
>>>>> > > > > > it
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> will
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my
>>>>> code
>>>>> > > > because I
>>>>> > > > > > use
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that
>>>>> closer
>>>>> > and
>>>>> > > > > write
>>>>> > > > > > > some
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be
>>>>> removed by
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > > > key.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>>> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>>> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra
>>>>> <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are
>>>>> using
>>>>> > > > @CachePut,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate
>>>>> annotations and I
>>>>> > > was
>>>>> > > > > > > trying
>>>>> > > > > > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what
>>>>> would be
>>>>> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > underlying
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those
>>>>> > operations
>>>>> > > > are
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below
>>>>> method
>>>>> > > then
>>>>> > > > > how
>>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> result
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
>>>>> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0
>>>>> > })
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael
>>>>> Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you
>>>>> mean this
>>>>> > > > would
>>>>> > > > > > > need
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> to be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into
>>>>> multiple
>>>>> > > > > > modules.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to
>>>>> also have
>>>>> > > > > > > ignite-data
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> but
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working
>>>>> correctly but
>>>>> > > the
>>>>> > > > > > basic
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> config is
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API
>>>>> > described
>>>>> > > > in
>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the
>>>>> moment
>>>>> > > I'm
>>>>> > > > > > > missing
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> an
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how
>>>>> that
>>>>> > > would
>>>>> > > > > fit
>>>>> > > > > > > > into
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> this
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added
>>>>> complexity but
>>>>> > > I'm
>>>>> > > > > sure
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> something
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate
>>>>> module
>>>>> > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > can
>>>>> > > > > > > be
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this
>>>>> > module
>>>>> > > > also
>>>>> > > > > > > has a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and
>>>>> SyncCache
>>>>> > are
>>>>> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > two
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two
>>>>> ways to
>>>>> > > > define
>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for
>>>>> AsyncCache and
>>>>> > > > > > SyncCache
>>>>> > > > > > > > but
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> they
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will
>>>>> use the
>>>>> > > name
>>>>> > > > of
>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> instance
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > > > > documentation
>>>>> > > > > > > I
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> believe
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you
>>>>> want and
>>>>> > > > > > Hazelcast
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > implements
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in
>>>>> the
>>>>> > yaml
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> configuration in
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of
>>>>> cache
>>>>> > > names
>>>>> > > > > are
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> provided
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > along
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > with
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can
>>>>> also be
>>>>> > > setup
>>>>> > > > > > > where a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> list
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > of
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be
>>>>> mapped to a
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> configuration if
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > that
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/
>>>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat
>>>>> Maitra <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you
>>>>> have any
>>>>> > > > > > questions
>>>>> > > > > > > > with
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > respect
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to
>>>>> integration and
>>>>> > > > wanted
>>>>> > > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > ask
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> if
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > these
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented
>>>>> for
>>>>> > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> micronaut-ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > integration.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is
>>>>> cacheable
>>>>> > > > within
>>>>> > > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> given
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > cache
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > name
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return
>>>>> value
>>>>> > of a
>>>>> > > > > > method
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > invocation
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > should
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the
>>>>> original
>>>>> > > > operation
>>>>> > > > > is
>>>>> > > > > > > > never
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > skipped.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the
>>>>> invocation
>>>>> > of a
>>>>> > > > > > method
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> should
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > cause
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the
>>>>> details in
>>>>> > dev
>>>>> > > > > list,
>>>>> > > > > > > it
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> great
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > learn
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Regards,
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Saikat
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael
>>>>> > > Pollind <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed
>>>>> out:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > > details
>>>>> > > > > > over
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> the next
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > few
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > days
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis
>>>>> Magda
>>>>> > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> dmagda@apache.org
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki
>>>>> pages
>>>>> > in
>>>>> > > > the
>>>>> > > > > > > Ignite
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > namespace.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list
>>>>> by
>>>>> > > sending
>>>>> > > > a
>>>>> > > > > > note
>>>>> > > > > > > > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org
>>>>> address.
>>>>> > > > > > Otherwise,
>>>>> > > > > > > > we
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> need
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > to
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > approve
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > -
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM
>>>>> Michael
>>>>> > > > Pollind
>>>>> > > > > <
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action
>>>>> > > ?
>>>>> > > > > > > username=mpollind
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull
>>>>> request
>>>>> > > > that
>>>>> > > > > > I've
>>>>> > > > > > > > put
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > together:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> --
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > > > --
>>>>> > > > > > -
>>>>> > > > > > Denis
>>>>> > > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
The way i've gone about providing dependencies is that these can be
provided through a factory.
@Bean
@Named("default")
@Primary
public IgniteConfiguration
igniteConfiguration(DefaultIgniteConfiguration configuration,
Collection<DefaultCacheConfiguration> cacheConfigurations,
Collection<PluginProvider> providers,
Collection<DefaultExecutorConfiguration> executorConfigurations,
Optional<PlatformConfiguration> platformConfigurations,
Optional<CollisionSpi>
collisionSpi,
Collection<LoadBalancingSpi> loadBalancingSpis,
Collection<FailoverSpi>
failoverSpis,
@ConsistencyId
Optional<Serializable> consistencyId,
@IgniteLifecycle
Collection<LifecycleBean> lifecycleBeans) {
configuration.setCacheConfiguration(cacheConfigurations.toArray(new
CacheConfiguration[0]))
.setPluginProviders(providers.toArray(new PluginProvider[0]))
.setExecutorConfiguration(executorConfigurations.toArray(new
ExecutorConfiguration[0]))
.setPlatformConfiguration(platformConfigurations.orElse(null))
.setFailoverSpi(failoverSpis.toArray(new FailoverSpi[0]))
.setLoadBalancingSpi(loadBalancingSpis.toArray(new LoadBalancingSpi[0]))
.setConsistentId(consistencyId.orElse(null))
.setLifecycleBeans(lifecycleBeans.toArray(new LifecycleBean[0]))
.setCollisionSpi(collisionSpi.orElse(null));
return configuration;
}
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:37 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> here is an updated example what the yaml looks like now.
>
> ignite:
> enabled: true
> comunication-spi:
> local-port: 5555
> cache-configurations:
> - accounts:
> table-name: ACCOUNTS
> key-type: String
> - books:
> table-name: BOOKS
> key-type: String
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its static and nested
>> in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not work in this case. So
>> DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the environment. This is a
>> working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it would have to be
>> setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration. DefaultDataStorageConfiguration and
>> a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum working setup and then add
>> in the missing configurations as we go?
>>
>> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "dataStorageConfiguration", excludes = "dataRegionConfigurations")
>> final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration = new DataStorageConfiguration();
>>
>> @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
>> public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
>> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>> DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration = new DataRegionConfiguration();
>>
>> public DataRegionConfiguration getDataRegionConfiguration() {
>> return dataRegionConfiguration;
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dennis,
>>>
>>> oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it because that
>>> didn't occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
>>> ClientConfiguration is a final class so that can't be extended from. This
>>> PR is starting to shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the
>>> documentation. The other thing I did was add a flag for the associated
>>> cache to use micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see If I
>>> can work out something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can
>>> provide your own bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
>>>
>>> [image: image.png]
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, for verifying.
>>>>
>>>> I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
>>>> > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are
>>>> just
>>>> > placed into wrapper classes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default configuration for
>>>> its
>>>> thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast core:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
>>>>
>>>> Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their Micronaut's
>>>> HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following configuration
>>>> parameteres:
>>>>
>>>> - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the parent
>>>> ClientConfig
>>>> class. They do this by adding this - *includes = {"properties",
>>>> "instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
>>>> - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig, SocketOptions
>>>> properties
>>>> (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be inherited as
>>>> above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder manually.
>>>>
>>>> As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and here is a
>>>> final list of configuration properties:
>>>>
>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
>>>>
>>>> Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's start with
>>>> the
>>>> thin client. It's much simpler.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > yea, will need to
>>>> > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no
>>>> way a
>>>> > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that
>>>> out
>>>> > yet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me know if you
>>>> need
>>>> me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> Denis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Dennis,
>>>> >
>>>> > This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>>>> > and
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
>>>> >
>>>> > test cases:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
>>>> >
>>>> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
>>>> > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are
>>>> just
>>>> > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
>>>> ConfigurationProperty
>>>> > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the
>>>> documentation is
>>>> > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think this will
>>>> work
>>>> > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest @EachProperty in a
>>>> single
>>>> > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how stuff gets
>>>> resolved
>>>> > (https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938).
>>>> so the
>>>> > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a first working
>>>> > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea, will need
>>>> to
>>>> > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no
>>>> way a
>>>> > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that
>>>> out
>>>> > yet.
>>>> >
>>>> > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Michael,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration specificities. What
>>>> > confused
>>>> > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration in Micronaut
>>>> looks
>>>> > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former automates a
>>>> lot
>>>> > with
>>>> > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default Spring
>>>> Boot
>>>> > > configuration looks
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/IgniteClientConfigurer.java
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible
>>>> property of
>>>> > an
>>>> > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>> > > >.
>>>> > > The upside of the reflection.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would suggest.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > *Ignite Thin Client*
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that *extends*
>>>> Ignite's
>>>> > > ClientConfiguration
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/ClientConfiguration.java
>>>> > > >.
>>>> > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
>>>> > ClientConfiguration
>>>> > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you were
>>>> doing
>>>> > > that
>>>> > > before I joined the review)
>>>> > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of custom
>>>> > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
>>>> > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
>>>> > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>> > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
>>>> > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we support
>>>> another
>>>> > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is created
>>>> > > programmatically in the source code and the integration uses that
>>>> bean to
>>>> > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
>>>> > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set the
>>>> properties
>>>> > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the ClientConfiguration
>>>> bean is
>>>> > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-programmatically
>>>> > > >and
>>>> > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous configuration
>>>> > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/IgniteConfiguration.java
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > .
>>>> > >
>>>> > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most frequently
>>>> used
>>>> > > configuration parameters and add them to the
>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>> > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems reasonable
>>>> if
>>>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's IgniteConfiguration
>>>> (so
>>>> > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types). Based on
>>>> my
>>>> > > experience, I would add the following settings of custom
>>>> non-primitive
>>>> > > types:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/TcpDiscoverySpi.java
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > with
>>>> > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be done easily,
>>>> right,
>>>> > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the beginning, I
>>>> would
>>>> > > only
>>>> > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > and
>>>> > > KubernetesIpFinder
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
>>>> > > >via
>>>> > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>>> > > - DataStorageConfiguration
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/DataStorageConfiguration.java
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > including
>>>> > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
>>>> > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > with
>>>> > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm assuming that
>>>> we can
>>>> > > do
>>>> > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through @ConfigurationBuilder
>>>> > > (include)
>>>> > > or inheritence.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
>>>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to create an
>>>> > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to initialize
>>>> an
>>>> > > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
>>>> > >
>>>> > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing something.
>>>> > > -
>>>> > > Denis
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
>>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com>
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > Hi Michael, Denis
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network
>>>> options
>>>> > for
>>>> > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something
>>>> similar to
>>>> > > > configure CommunicationSpi
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > [1]
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#ehcache
>>>> > > > [2]
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Let me know what you think.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Regards,
>>>> > > > Saikat
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation. You
>>>> can
>>>> > ask
>>>> > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
>>>> > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
>>>> > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
>>>> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for
>>>> > > EachProperty
>>>> > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the current
>>>> > > existing
>>>> > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are
>>>> setup.
>>>> > > There
>>>> > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been
>>>> pretty
>>>> > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these
>>>> annotations work
>>>> > > in
>>>> > > > > practice.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Michael,
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite
>>>> > > instances
>>>> > > > > is
>>>> > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a
>>>> single
>>>> > > > instance
>>>> > > > > > only.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration
>>>> matters of
>>>> > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could
>>>> you
>>>> > > > > recommend
>>>> > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration
>>>> > specifies
>>>> > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > Denis
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
>>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the
>>>> > communicationSpi,
>>>> > > > so
>>>> > > > > > you
>>>> > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
>>>> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
>>>> > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much
>>>> like
>>>> > the
>>>> > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
>>>> > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>> > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
>>>> > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just
>>>> > allowing
>>>> > > a
>>>> > > > > > single
>>>> > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot
>>>> configuration:
>>>> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
>>>> > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the
>>>> default
>>>> > > use
>>>> > > > > case
>>>> > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as
>>>> follows:
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > ignite:
>>>> > > > > > > enable true
>>>> > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
>>>> > > > > > > communication-spi:
>>>> > > > > > > local-port: 5555
>>>> > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
>>>> > > > > > > ...
>>>> > > > > > > cache-configurations:
>>>> > > > > > > - name: accounts
>>>> > > > > > > queryEntities:
>>>> > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
>>>> > > > > > > ...
>>>> > > > > > > - ...
>>>> > > > > > > ignite-thin:
>>>> > > > > > > enable: false
>>>> > > > > > > instance-name: name
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of
>>>> something
>>>> > > > that
>>>> > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
>>>> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <
>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > Michael,
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is
>>>> used
>>>> > by
>>>> > > > > > default
>>>> > > > > > > so
>>>> > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything
>>>> but
>>>> > the
>>>> > > > > > default
>>>> > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the
>>>> configuration
>>>> > > is
>>>> > > > > > > present.
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we
>>>> shouldn't
>>>> > > > bother
>>>> > > > > > > about
>>>> > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I
>>>> said
>>>> > > > before,
>>>> > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is
>>>> > designed
>>>> > > > for
>>>> > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly
>>>> think
>>>> > > of a
>>>> > > > > use
>>>> > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot
>>>> up
>>>> > > several
>>>> > > > > > > Ignite
>>>> > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite
>>>> > > instance
>>>> > > > > per
>>>> > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will
>>>> > > > significantly
>>>> > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If
>>>> > anybody
>>>> > > > > needs
>>>> > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them
>>>> > manually.
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > By default the
>>>> > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client
>>>> > DynamicCache
>>>> > > > if
>>>> > > > > > that
>>>> > > > > > > > > would be ok?
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply
>>>> disallow
>>>> > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a
>>>> thick
>>>> > or
>>>> > > > > thin
>>>> > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already
>>>> started,
>>>> > then
>>>> > > > > throw
>>>> > > > > > an
>>>> > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and
>>>> vice
>>>> > > > versa).
>>>> > > > > > As
>>>> > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut,
>>>> I
>>>> > would
>>>> > > > > > > recommend
>>>> > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a
>>>> serverless
>>>> > > > > function
>>>> > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while
>>>> for
>>>> > > > > > > micro-services
>>>> > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean
>>>> definition was
>>>> > > > mainly
>>>> > > > > > for
>>>> > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
>>>> > relevant.
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about
>>>> > Micronaut.
>>>> > > > Let
>>>> > > > > me
>>>> > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
>>>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > private final String name;
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>> > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
>>>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below
>>>> > without
>>>> > > > > having
>>>> > > > > > > it
>>>> > > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you
>>>> getting a
>>>> > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > ignite:
>>>> > > > > > > > name: some_name
>>>> > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
>>>> > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
>>>> > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
>>>> > > > > > > > -
>>>> > > > > > > > Denis
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
>>>> > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together
>>>> along
>>>> > > > with
>>>> > > > > > some
>>>> > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little
>>>> > > > complicated
>>>> > > > > > > but I
>>>> > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>>>> > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>> > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>> > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean
>>>> definition
>>>> > was
>>>> > > > > > mainly
>>>> > > > > > > > for
>>>> > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
>>>> > > relevant.
>>>> > > > > Will
>>>> > > > > > > > have
>>>> > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might
>>>> get a
>>>> > > > little
>>>> > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
>>>> > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
>>>> > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass
>>>> that
>>>> > to
>>>> > > > > > > somewhere
>>>> > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
>>>> > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>>> > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
>>>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>>>> > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
>>>> > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
>>>> > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is
>>>> > > declared. I
>>>> > > > > > think
>>>> > > > > > > > we
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If
>>>> i'm
>>>> > not
>>>> > > > > > > mistaken
>>>> > > > > > > > for
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide
>>>> the
>>>> > name
>>>> > > > > since
>>>> > > > > > > > that is
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under
>>>> > > EachProperty.
>>>> > > > > The
>>>> > > > > > > > name is
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also
>>>> the
>>>> > same
>>>> > > > > > > > qualifier for
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use
>>>> the
>>>> > > > primary
>>>> > > > > > bean
>>>> > > > > > > > for
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache
>>>> instance
>>>> > > active
>>>> > > > > at a
>>>> > > > > > > > time.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean
>>>> is used
>>>> > > by
>>>> > > > > > > default
>>>> > > > > > > > so
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with
>>>> anything but
>>>> > > the
>>>> > > > > > > default
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the
>>>> > configuration
>>>> > > > is
>>>> > > > > > > > present.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use
>>>> one
>>>> > > > > instance
>>>> > > > > > of
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works
>>>> again. By
>>>> > > > > default
>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client
>>>> > > DynamicCache
>>>> > > > > if
>>>> > > > > > > that
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> ....
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>>> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
>>>> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
>>>> > > > instances.
>>>> > > > > > > This
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a
>>>> thick
>>>> > or
>>>> > > > thin
>>>> > > > > > > > client
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> per
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can
>>>> > utilize
>>>> > > > all
>>>> > > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > CPUs
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the
>>>> ability
>>>> > > to
>>>> > > > > > > > configure
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I
>>>> understand,
>>>> > > > > Micronaut
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
>>>> > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
>>>> > > > > > > > property,
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> right?
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are?
>>>> By
>>>> > > > looking
>>>> > > > > at
>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>>> > > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >,
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
>>>> > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> property
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that
>>>> Micronaut
>>>> > > > could
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and
>>>> prepared
>>>> > these
>>>> > > > > > > > properties
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> table
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>>> > > > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>>> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the
>>>> thin
>>>> > > > client
>>>> > > > > > in a
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
>>>> > > > > ClientConfiguration
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some
>>>> settings
>>>> > > such
>>>> > > > > as
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this
>>>> sound
>>>> > > > > > accurate
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would
>>>> just swap
>>>> > > the
>>>> > > > > > > "path"
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> that
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
>>>> > IgniteConfiguration.
>>>> > > > > Then
>>>> > > > > > > let
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults
>>>> and
>>>> > > > allow a
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> developer
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
>>>> discoverySPI.ipFinder
>>>> > or
>>>> > > > > memory
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
>>>> IgniteConfiguration
>>>> > > > > defaults
>>>> > > > > > > > here
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>>> > > > > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>>> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> .
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> -
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
>>>> > > > instances.
>>>> > > > > > > This
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I
>>>> was
>>>> > > > > originally
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite
>>>> > instance
>>>> > > > but
>>>> > > > > > > found
>>>> > > > > > > > I
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what
>>>> > > defaults
>>>> > > > > are
>>>> > > > > > > set
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> for
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items
>>>> can't
>>>> > be
>>>> > > > > > covered
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> with how
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
>>>> @ConfigurationProperty
>>>> > > can
>>>> > > > > > only
>>>> > > > > > > be
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have
>>>> > > multiple
>>>> > > > > > > > factories
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> and
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets
>>>> overwhelming.
>>>> > In
>>>> > > > > this
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> situation
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more
>>>> ideal in
>>>> > > this
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't
>>>> be
>>>> > able
>>>> > > to
>>>> > > > > > cover
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> enough
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default:
>>>> > > > > address:
>>>> > > > > > > > -
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
>>>> > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
>>>> > > > > > "
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot
>>>> documentation:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
>>>> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki
>>>> section and
>>>> > > the
>>>> > > > > > > current
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > version
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>>> > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>> > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following
>>>> changes:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
>>>> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
>>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>>> > > as
>>>> > > > > it's
>>>> > > > > > > > done
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> for
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
>>>> > > > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
>>>> > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the
>>>> > developers
>>>> > > > > might
>>>> > > > > > > need
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> to
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
>>>> > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope
>>>> to the
>>>> > > > Ignite
>>>> > > > > > > > clients
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and
>>>> "path". I
>>>> > > > would
>>>> > > > > > > > replace
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that
>>>> instantiates
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we
>>>> do
>>>> > that,
>>>> > > > > then
>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
>>>> > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> straight
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > in
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the
>>>> Ignite
>>>> > > Spring
>>>> > > > > > Boot
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>> > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible,
>>>> then I
>>>> > > > would
>>>> > > > > > > > rework
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly,
>>>> taking
>>>> > > our
>>>> > > > > > Spring
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>>> > > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version
>>>> of
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>>> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename
>>>> > > > "configuration"
>>>> > > > > > to
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can
>>>> pass
>>>> > the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format
>>>> below:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>> > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get
>>>> > > wrapped
>>>> > > > > > into a
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the
>>>> > > relevant
>>>> > > > > > > sections
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> of
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > code
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with
>>>> the
>>>> > > methods
>>>> > > > > > that
>>>> > > > > > > > get
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > called
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from.
>>>> Hopefully
>>>> > > this
>>>> > > > > > helps.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> The key
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > is
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but
>>>> this
>>>> > can
>>>> > > > be
>>>> > > > > > > > changed
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> if
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By
>>>> default it
>>>> > > uses
>>>> > > > > > this
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/
>>>> > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on
>>>> and how
>>>> > > this
>>>> > > > > > could
>>>> > > > > > > > be
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a
>>>> put if
>>>> > the
>>>> > > > > value
>>>> > > > > > > is
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> not
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return
>>>> is
>>>> > null
>>>> > > > > else
>>>> > > > > > it
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> will
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my
>>>> code
>>>> > > > because I
>>>> > > > > > use
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that
>>>> closer
>>>> > and
>>>> > > > > write
>>>> > > > > > > some
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed
>>>> by
>>>> > the
>>>> > > > key.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>>> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>>> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using
>>>> > > > @CachePut,
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations
>>>> and I
>>>> > > was
>>>> > > > > > > trying
>>>> > > > > > > > to
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what
>>>> would be
>>>> > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > underlying
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those
>>>> > operations
>>>> > > > are
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below
>>>> method
>>>> > > then
>>>> > > > > how
>>>> > > > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> result
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > of
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return
>>>> counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0
>>>> > })
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael
>>>> Pollind <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you
>>>> mean this
>>>> > > > would
>>>> > > > > > > need
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> to be
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into
>>>> multiple
>>>> > > > > > modules.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also
>>>> have
>>>> > > > > > > ignite-data
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> but
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > that
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working
>>>> correctly but
>>>> > > the
>>>> > > > > > basic
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> config is
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API
>>>> > described
>>>> > > > in
>>>> > > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the
>>>> moment
>>>> > > I'm
>>>> > > > > > > missing
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> an
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how
>>>> that
>>>> > > would
>>>> > > > > fit
>>>> > > > > > > > into
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> this
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added
>>>> complexity but
>>>> > > I'm
>>>> > > > > sure
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> something
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate
>>>> module
>>>> > > > that
>>>> > > > > > can
>>>> > > > > > > be
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this
>>>> > module
>>>> > > > also
>>>> > > > > > > has a
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and
>>>> SyncCache
>>>> > are
>>>> > > > the
>>>> > > > > > two
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two
>>>> ways to
>>>> > > > define
>>>> > > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for
>>>> AsyncCache and
>>>> > > > > > SyncCache
>>>> > > > > > > > but
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> they
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use
>>>> the
>>>> > > name
>>>> > > > of
>>>> > > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> instance
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the
>>>> > > > > > documentation
>>>> > > > > > > I
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> believe
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you
>>>> want and
>>>> > > > > > Hazelcast
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > implements
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in
>>>> the
>>>> > yaml
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> configuration in
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of
>>>> cache
>>>> > > names
>>>> > > > > are
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> provided
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > along
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > with
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can
>>>> also be
>>>> > > setup
>>>> > > > > > > where a
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> list
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > of
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be
>>>> mapped to a
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> configuration if
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > that
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/
>>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat
>>>> Maitra <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you
>>>> have any
>>>> > > > > > questions
>>>> > > > > > > > with
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > respect
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > to
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration
>>>> and
>>>> > > > wanted
>>>> > > > > to
>>>> > > > > > > ask
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> if
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > these
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented
>>>> for
>>>> > the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> micronaut-ignite
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > integration.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is
>>>> cacheable
>>>> > > > within
>>>> > > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> given
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > cache
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > name
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return
>>>> value
>>>> > of a
>>>> > > > > > method
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > invocation
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > should
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original
>>>> > > > operation
>>>> > > > > is
>>>> > > > > > > > never
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > skipped.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the
>>>> invocation
>>>> > of a
>>>> > > > > > method
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> should
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > cause
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the
>>>> details in
>>>> > dev
>>>> > > > > list,
>>>> > > > > > > it
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> great
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > to
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > learn
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Regards,
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Saikat
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael
>>>> > > Pollind <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of
>>>> the
>>>> > > > details
>>>> > > > > > over
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> the next
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > few
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > days
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis
>>>> Magda
>>>> > <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> dmagda@apache.org
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki
>>>> pages
>>>> > in
>>>> > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > Ignite
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > namespace.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by
>>>> > > sending
>>>> > > > a
>>>> > > > > > note
>>>> > > > > > > > to
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org
>>>> address.
>>>> > > > > > Otherwise,
>>>> > > > > > > > we
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> need
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > to
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > approve
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > -
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM
>>>> Michael
>>>> > > > Pollind
>>>> > > > > <
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action
>>>> > > ?
>>>> > > > > > > username=mpollind
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull
>>>> request
>>>> > > > that
>>>> > > > > > I've
>>>> > > > > > > > put
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > together:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> --
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > --
>>>> > > > > > -
>>>> > > > > > Denis
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
here is an updated example what the yaml looks like now.
ignite:
enabled: true
comunication-spi:
local-port: 5555
cache-configurations:
- accounts:
table-name: ACCOUNTS
key-type: String
- books:
table-name: BOOKS
key-type: String
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:28 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its static and nested
> in a class. Its a separate final class so it will not work in this case. So
> DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the environment. This is a
> working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it would have to be
> setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration. DefaultDataStorageConfiguration and
> a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum working setup and then add
> in the missing configurations as we go?
>
> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "dataStorageConfiguration", excludes = "dataRegionConfigurations")
> final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration = new DataStorageConfiguration();
>
> @EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
> public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration = new DataRegionConfiguration();
>
> public DataRegionConfiguration getDataRegionConfiguration() {
> return dataRegionConfiguration;
> }
> }
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dennis,
>>
>> oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it because that
>> didn't occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but
>> ClientConfiguration is a final class so that can't be extended from. This
>> PR is starting to shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the
>> documentation. The other thing I did was add a flag for the associated
>> cache to use micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see If I
>> can work out something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can
>> provide your own bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> Thanks, for verifying.
>>>
>>> I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
>>> > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are
>>> just
>>> > placed into wrapper classes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default configuration for
>>> its
>>> thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast core:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
>>>
>>> Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their Micronaut's
>>> HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following configuration
>>> parameteres:
>>>
>>> - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the parent
>>> ClientConfig
>>> class. They do this by adding this - *includes = {"properties",
>>> "instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
>>> - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig, SocketOptions properties
>>> (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be inherited as
>>> above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder manually.
>>>
>>> As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and here is a
>>> final list of configuration properties:
>>>
>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
>>>
>>> Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's start with the
>>> thin client. It's much simpler.
>>>
>>>
>>> > yea, will need to
>>> > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no
>>> way a
>>> > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that out
>>> > yet.
>>>
>>>
>>> That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me know if you need
>>> me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Dennis,
>>> >
>>> > This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>>> > and
>>> >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
>>> >
>>> > test cases:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
>>> >
>>> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
>>> > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are
>>> just
>>> > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
>>> ConfigurationProperty
>>> > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the documentation
>>> is
>>> > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think this will
>>> work
>>> > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest @EachProperty in a
>>> single
>>> > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how stuff gets
>>> resolved
>>> > (https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938).
>>> so the
>>> > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a first working
>>> > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea, will need to
>>> > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no
>>> way a
>>> > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that out
>>> > yet.
>>> >
>>> > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Michael,
>>> > >
>>> > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration specificities. What
>>> > confused
>>> > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration in Micronaut
>>> looks
>>> > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former automates a lot
>>> > with
>>> > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default Spring Boot
>>> > > configuration looks
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/IgniteClientConfigurer.java
>>> > > >
>>> > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible
>>> property of
>>> > an
>>> > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>> > > >.
>>> > > The upside of the reflection.
>>> > >
>>> > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would suggest.
>>> > >
>>> > > *Ignite Thin Client*
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that *extends*
>>> Ignite's
>>> > > ClientConfiguration
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/ClientConfiguration.java
>>> > > >.
>>> > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
>>> > ClientConfiguration
>>> > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you were
>>> doing
>>> > > that
>>> > > before I joined the review)
>>> > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of custom
>>> > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
>>> > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
>>> > @ConfigurationBuilder
>>> > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
>>> > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
>>> > >
>>> > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we support another
>>> > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is created
>>> > > programmatically in the source code and the integration uses that
>>> bean to
>>> > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
>>> > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set the
>>> properties
>>> > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the ClientConfiguration
>>> bean is
>>> > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-programmatically
>>> > > >and
>>> > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
>>> > >
>>> > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
>>> > >
>>> > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous configuration
>>> > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/IgniteConfiguration.java
>>> > > >
>>> > > .
>>> > >
>>> > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most frequently
>>> used
>>> > > configuration parameters and add them to the
>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>> > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems reasonable
>>> if
>>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's IgniteConfiguration
>>> (so
>>> > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types). Based on
>>> my
>>> > > experience, I would add the following settings of custom
>>> non-primitive
>>> > > types:
>>> > >
>>> > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/TcpDiscoverySpi.java
>>> > > >
>>> > > with
>>> > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be done easily,
>>> right,
>>> > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the beginning, I
>>> would
>>> > > only
>>> > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
>>> > > >
>>> > > and
>>> > > KubernetesIpFinder
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
>>> > > >via
>>> > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>>> > > - DataStorageConfiguration
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/DataStorageConfiguration.java
>>> > > >
>>> > > including
>>> > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
>>> > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
>>> > > >
>>> > > with
>>> > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm assuming that
>>> we can
>>> > > do
>>> > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through @ConfigurationBuilder
>>> > > (include)
>>> > > or inheritence.
>>> > >
>>> > > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
>>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to create an
>>> > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to initialize an
>>> > > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
>>> > >
>>> > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing something.
>>> > > -
>>> > > Denis
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Hi Michael, Denis
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network
>>> options
>>> > for
>>> > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something similar
>>> to
>>> > > > configure CommunicationSpi
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > [1]
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#ehcache
>>> > > > [2]
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Let me know what you think.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Regards,
>>> > > > Saikat
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation. You
>>> can
>>> > ask
>>> > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
>>> > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
>>> > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
>>> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for
>>> > > EachProperty
>>> > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the current
>>> > > existing
>>> > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are
>>> setup.
>>> > > There
>>> > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been
>>> pretty
>>> > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these annotations
>>> work
>>> > > in
>>> > > > > practice.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > Michael,
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite
>>> > > instances
>>> > > > > is
>>> > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a single
>>> > > > instance
>>> > > > > > only.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration
>>> matters of
>>> > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could
>>> you
>>> > > > > recommend
>>> > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration
>>> > specifies
>>> > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Denis
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
>>> mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > >
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the
>>> > communicationSpi,
>>> > > > so
>>> > > > > > you
>>> > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
>>> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
>>> > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much
>>> like
>>> > the
>>> > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
>>> > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>> > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
>>> > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just
>>> > allowing
>>> > > a
>>> > > > > > single
>>> > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot
>>> configuration:
>>> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
>>> > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the
>>> default
>>> > > use
>>> > > > > case
>>> > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as
>>> follows:
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > ignite:
>>> > > > > > > enable true
>>> > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
>>> > > > > > > communication-spi:
>>> > > > > > > local-port: 5555
>>> > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
>>> > > > > > > ...
>>> > > > > > > cache-configurations:
>>> > > > > > > - name: accounts
>>> > > > > > > queryEntities:
>>> > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
>>> > > > > > > ...
>>> > > > > > > - ...
>>> > > > > > > ignite-thin:
>>> > > > > > > enable: false
>>> > > > > > > instance-name: name
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of
>>> something
>>> > > > that
>>> > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
>>> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <
>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > Michael,
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is
>>> used
>>> > by
>>> > > > > > default
>>> > > > > > > so
>>> > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything
>>> but
>>> > the
>>> > > > > > default
>>> > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the
>>> configuration
>>> > > is
>>> > > > > > > present.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we
>>> shouldn't
>>> > > > bother
>>> > > > > > > about
>>> > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I
>>> said
>>> > > > before,
>>> > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is
>>> > designed
>>> > > > for
>>> > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly
>>> think
>>> > > of a
>>> > > > > use
>>> > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot up
>>> > > several
>>> > > > > > > Ignite
>>> > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite
>>> > > instance
>>> > > > > per
>>> > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will
>>> > > > significantly
>>> > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If
>>> > anybody
>>> > > > > needs
>>> > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them
>>> > manually.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > By default the
>>> > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client
>>> > DynamicCache
>>> > > > if
>>> > > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > > would be ok?
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply
>>> disallow
>>> > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a
>>> thick
>>> > or
>>> > > > > thin
>>> > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already started,
>>> > then
>>> > > > > throw
>>> > > > > > an
>>> > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and
>>> vice
>>> > > > versa).
>>> > > > > > As
>>> > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut, I
>>> > would
>>> > > > > > > recommend
>>> > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a
>>> serverless
>>> > > > > function
>>> > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while for
>>> > > > > > > micro-services
>>> > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition
>>> was
>>> > > > mainly
>>> > > > > > for
>>> > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
>>> > relevant.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about
>>> > Micronaut.
>>> > > > Let
>>> > > > > me
>>> > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
>>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > private final String name;
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>> > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
>>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below
>>> > without
>>> > > > > having
>>> > > > > > > it
>>> > > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you
>>> getting a
>>> > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > ignite:
>>> > > > > > > > name: some_name
>>> > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
>>> > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
>>> > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
>>> > > > > > > > -
>>> > > > > > > > Denis
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
>>> > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together
>>> along
>>> > > > with
>>> > > > > > some
>>> > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little
>>> > > > complicated
>>> > > > > > > but I
>>> > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>>> > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>> > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>> > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean
>>> definition
>>> > was
>>> > > > > > mainly
>>> > > > > > > > for
>>> > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
>>> > > relevant.
>>> > > > > Will
>>> > > > > > > > have
>>> > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might
>>> get a
>>> > > > little
>>> > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
>>> > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
>>> > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass
>>> that
>>> > to
>>> > > > > > > somewhere
>>> > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
>>> > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>>> > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
>>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>>> > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
>>> > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
>>> > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is
>>> > > declared. I
>>> > > > > > think
>>> > > > > > > > we
>>> > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If
>>> i'm
>>> > not
>>> > > > > > > mistaken
>>> > > > > > > > for
>>> > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the
>>> > name
>>> > > > > since
>>> > > > > > > > that is
>>> > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under
>>> > > EachProperty.
>>> > > > > The
>>> > > > > > > > name is
>>> > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also
>>> the
>>> > same
>>> > > > > > > > qualifier for
>>> > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use
>>> the
>>> > > > primary
>>> > > > > > bean
>>> > > > > > > > for
>>> > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance
>>> > > active
>>> > > > > at a
>>> > > > > > > > time.
>>> > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is
>>> used
>>> > > by
>>> > > > > > > default
>>> > > > > > > > so
>>> > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything
>>> but
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > > default
>>> > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the
>>> > configuration
>>> > > > is
>>> > > > > > > > present.
>>> > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use
>>> one
>>> > > > > instance
>>> > > > > > of
>>> > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works
>>> again. By
>>> > > > > default
>>> > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client
>>> > > DynamicCache
>>> > > > > if
>>> > > > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
>>> > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
>>> > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>>> > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>> > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>>> > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>> > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
>>> > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>>> > > > > > > > >>> ...
>>> > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>>> > > > > > > > >>> ....
>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>>> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
>>> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
>>> > > > instances.
>>> > > > > > > This
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a
>>> thick
>>> > or
>>> > > > thin
>>> > > > > > > > client
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> per
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can
>>> > utilize
>>> > > > all
>>> > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > CPUs
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the
>>> ability
>>> > > to
>>> > > > > > > > configure
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I
>>> understand,
>>> > > > > Micronaut
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
>>> > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
>>> > > > > > > > property,
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> right?
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are?
>>> By
>>> > > > looking
>>> > > > > at
>>> > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>> > > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >,
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
>>> > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> property
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that
>>> Micronaut
>>> > > > could
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared
>>> > these
>>> > > > > > > > properties
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> table
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>>> > > > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the
>>> thin
>>> > > > client
>>> > > > > > in a
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
>>> > > > > ClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some
>>> settings
>>> > > such
>>> > > > > as
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this
>>> sound
>>> > > > > > accurate
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just
>>> swap
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > > "path"
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> that
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
>>> > IgniteConfiguration.
>>> > > > > Then
>>> > > > > > > let
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults
>>> and
>>> > > > allow a
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> developer
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
>>> discoverySPI.ipFinder
>>> > or
>>> > > > > memory
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
>>> IgniteConfiguration
>>> > > > > defaults
>>> > > > > > > > here
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>>> > > > > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>>> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> .
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> -
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
>>> > > > instances.
>>> > > > > > > This
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was
>>> > > > > originally
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite
>>> > instance
>>> > > > but
>>> > > > > > > found
>>> > > > > > > > I
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what
>>> > > defaults
>>> > > > > are
>>> > > > > > > set
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> for
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items
>>> can't
>>> > be
>>> > > > > > covered
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> with how
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
>>> @ConfigurationProperty
>>> > > can
>>> > > > > > only
>>> > > > > > > be
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have
>>> > > multiple
>>> > > > > > > > factories
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> and
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets
>>> overwhelming.
>>> > In
>>> > > > > this
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> situation
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more
>>> ideal in
>>> > > this
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be
>>> > able
>>> > > to
>>> > > > > > cover
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> enough
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default:
>>> > > > > address:
>>> > > > > > > > -
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
>>> > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
>>> > > > > > "
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot
>>> documentation:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
>>> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki
>>> section and
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > > current
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > version
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>>> > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > >
>>> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>> > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following
>>> changes:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
>>> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
>>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>>> > > as
>>> > > > > it's
>>> > > > > > > > done
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> for
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
>>> > > > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
>>> > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the
>>> > developers
>>> > > > > might
>>> > > > > > > need
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> to
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
>>> > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to
>>> the
>>> > > > Ignite
>>> > > > > > > > clients
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and
>>> "path". I
>>> > > > would
>>> > > > > > > > replace
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that
>>> instantiates
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do
>>> > that,
>>> > > > > then
>>> > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
>>> > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> straight
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > in
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the
>>> Ignite
>>> > > Spring
>>> > > > > > Boot
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>> > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible,
>>> then I
>>> > > > would
>>> > > > > > > > rework
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly,
>>> taking
>>> > > our
>>> > > > > > Spring
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>>> > > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version
>>> of
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > >
>>> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>>> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename
>>> > > > "configuration"
>>> > > > > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can
>>> pass
>>> > the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format
>>> below:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get
>>> > > wrapped
>>> > > > > > into a
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the
>>> > > relevant
>>> > > > > > > sections
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> of
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > code
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the
>>> > > methods
>>> > > > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > get
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > called
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from.
>>> Hopefully
>>> > > this
>>> > > > > > helps.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> The key
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > is
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but
>>> this
>>> > can
>>> > > > be
>>> > > > > > > > changed
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> if
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By
>>> default it
>>> > > uses
>>> > > > > > this
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>> > > > > > >
>>> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/
>>> > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and
>>> how
>>> > > this
>>> > > > > > could
>>> > > > > > > > be
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put
>>> if
>>> > the
>>> > > > > value
>>> > > > > > > is
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> not
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return
>>> is
>>> > null
>>> > > > > else
>>> > > > > > it
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> will
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code
>>> > > > because I
>>> > > > > > use
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that
>>> closer
>>> > and
>>> > > > > write
>>> > > > > > > some
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed
>>> by
>>> > the
>>> > > > key.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>>> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>>> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using
>>> > > > @CachePut,
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations
>>> and I
>>> > > was
>>> > > > > > > trying
>>> > > > > > > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what
>>> would be
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > > > underlying
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those
>>> > operations
>>> > > > are
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below
>>> method
>>> > > then
>>> > > > > how
>>> > > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> result
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > of
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name,
>>> { 0
>>> > })
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael
>>> Pollind <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean
>>> this
>>> > > > would
>>> > > > > > > need
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> to be
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into
>>> multiple
>>> > > > > > modules.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also
>>> have
>>> > > > > > > ignite-data
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> but
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > that
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly
>>> but
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > > basic
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> config is
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API
>>> > described
>>> > > > in
>>> > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the
>>> moment
>>> > > I'm
>>> > > > > > > missing
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> an
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how
>>> that
>>> > > would
>>> > > > > fit
>>> > > > > > > > into
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> this
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity
>>> but
>>> > > I'm
>>> > > > > sure
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> something
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate
>>> module
>>> > > > that
>>> > > > > > can
>>> > > > > > > be
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this
>>> > module
>>> > > > also
>>> > > > > > > has a
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and
>>> SyncCache
>>> > are
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > > > two
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways
>>> to
>>> > > > define
>>> > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache
>>> and
>>> > > > > > SyncCache
>>> > > > > > > > but
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> they
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use
>>> the
>>> > > name
>>> > > > of
>>> > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> instance
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the
>>> > > > > > documentation
>>> > > > > > > I
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> believe
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you
>>> want and
>>> > > > > > Hazelcast
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > implements
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the
>>> > yaml
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> configuration in
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of
>>> cache
>>> > > names
>>> > > > > are
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> provided
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > along
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > with
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also
>>> be
>>> > > setup
>>> > > > > > > where a
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> list
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > of
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped
>>> to a
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> configuration if
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > that
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/
>>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat
>>> Maitra <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have
>>> any
>>> > > > > > questions
>>> > > > > > > > with
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > respect
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration
>>> and
>>> > > > wanted
>>> > > > > to
>>> > > > > > > ask
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> if
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > these
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented
>>> for
>>> > the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> micronaut-ignite
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > integration.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is
>>> cacheable
>>> > > > within
>>> > > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> given
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > cache
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > name
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return
>>> value
>>> > of a
>>> > > > > > method
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > invocation
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > should
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original
>>> > > > operation
>>> > > > > is
>>> > > > > > > > never
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > skipped.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the
>>> invocation
>>> > of a
>>> > > > > > method
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> should
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > cause
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details
>>> in
>>> > dev
>>> > > > > list,
>>> > > > > > > it
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> great
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > to
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > learn
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Regards,
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Saikat
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael
>>> > > Pollind <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of
>>> the
>>> > > > details
>>> > > > > > over
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> the next
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > few
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > days
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis
>>> Magda
>>> > <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> dmagda@apache.org
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki
>>> pages
>>> > in
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > Ignite
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > namespace.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by
>>> > > sending
>>> > > > a
>>> > > > > > note
>>> > > > > > > > to
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> the
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org
>>> address.
>>> > > > > > Otherwise,
>>> > > > > > > > we
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> need
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > to
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > approve
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > -
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM
>>> Michael
>>> > > > Pollind
>>> > > > > <
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action
>>> > > ?
>>> > > > > > > username=mpollind
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull
>>> request
>>> > > > that
>>> > > > > > I've
>>> > > > > > > > put
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > together:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> --
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > --
>>> > > > > > -
>>> > > > > > Denis
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
micronaut will only inject into a nested object if its static and nested in
a class. Its a separate final class so it will not work in this case. So
DataRegionConfiguration will not get set from the environment. This is a
working example but this can be adjusted. I guess it would have to be
setup like DefaultIgniteConfiguration. DefaultDataStorageConfiguration and
a nested EachProperty? Lets try have a minimum working setup and then add
in the missing configurations as we go?
@ConfigurationBuilder(value = "dataStorageConfiguration", excludes =
"dataRegionConfigurations")
final DataStorageConfiguration dataStorageConfiguration = new
DataStorageConfiguration();
@EachProperty("dataRegionConfigurations")
public static class DefaultDataRegionConfiguration {
@ConfigurationBuilder()
DataRegionConfiguration dataRegionConfiguration = new
DataRegionConfiguration();
public DataRegionConfiguration getDataRegionConfiguration() {
return dataRegionConfiguration;
}
}
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 7:08 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it because that didn't
> occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but ClientConfiguration
> is a final class so that can't be extended from. This PR is starting to
> shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the documentation. The
> other thing I did was add a flag for the associated cache to use
> micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see If I can work out
> something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can provide your own
> bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Thanks, for verifying.
>>
>> I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
>> > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are just
>> > placed into wrapper classes.
>>
>>
>> Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default configuration for its
>> thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast core:
>>
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
>>
>> Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their Micronaut's
>> HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following configuration
>> parameteres:
>>
>> - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the parent ClientConfig
>> class. They do this by adding this - *includes = {"properties",
>> "instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
>> - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig, SocketOptions properties
>> (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be inherited as
>> above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder manually.
>>
>> As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and here is a
>> final list of configuration properties:
>>
>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
>>
>> Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's start with the
>> thin client. It's much simpler.
>>
>>
>> > yea, will need to
>> > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no
>> way a
>> > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that out
>> > yet.
>>
>>
>> That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me know if you need
>> me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Denis
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Dennis,
>> >
>> > This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
>> >
>> >
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>> > and
>> >
>> >
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
>> >
>> > test cases:
>> >
>> >
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
>> >
>> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
>> > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are just
>> > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think
>> ConfigurationProperty
>> > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the documentation
>> is
>> > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think this will
>> work
>> > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest @EachProperty in a
>> single
>> > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how stuff gets
>> resolved
>> > (https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938). so
>> the
>> > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a first working
>> > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea, will need to
>> > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no
>> way a
>> > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that out
>> > yet.
>> >
>> > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Michael,
>> > >
>> > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration specificities. What
>> > confused
>> > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration in Micronaut
>> looks
>> > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former automates a lot
>> > with
>> > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default Spring Boot
>> > > configuration looks
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/IgniteClientConfigurer.java
>> > > >
>> > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible property
>> of
>> > an
>> > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>> > > >.
>> > > The upside of the reflection.
>> > >
>> > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would suggest.
>> > >
>> > > *Ignite Thin Client*
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that *extends*
>> Ignite's
>> > > ClientConfiguration
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/ClientConfiguration.java
>> > > >.
>> > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
>> > ClientConfiguration
>> > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you were
>> doing
>> > > that
>> > > before I joined the review)
>> > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of custom
>> > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
>> > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
>> > @ConfigurationBuilder
>> > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
>> > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
>> > >
>> > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we support another
>> > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is created
>> > > programmatically in the source code and the integration uses that
>> bean to
>> > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
>> > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set the
>> properties
>> > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the ClientConfiguration bean
>> is
>> > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-programmatically
>> > > >and
>> > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
>> > >
>> > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
>> > >
>> > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous configuration
>> > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/IgniteConfiguration.java
>> > > >
>> > > .
>> > >
>> > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most frequently
>> used
>> > > configuration parameters and add them to the
>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>> > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems reasonable if
>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's IgniteConfiguration
>> (so
>> > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types). Based on my
>> > > experience, I would add the following settings of custom non-primitive
>> > > types:
>> > >
>> > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/TcpDiscoverySpi.java
>> > > >
>> > > with
>> > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be done easily,
>> right,
>> > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the beginning, I
>> would
>> > > only
>> > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
>> > > >
>> > > and
>> > > KubernetesIpFinder
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
>> > > >via
>> > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
>> > > - DataStorageConfiguration
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/DataStorageConfiguration.java
>> > > >
>> > > including
>> > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
>> > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
>> > > >
>> > > with
>> > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm assuming that we
>> can
>> > > do
>> > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through @ConfigurationBuilder
>> > > (include)
>> > > or inheritence.
>> > >
>> > > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to create an
>> > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to initialize an
>> > > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
>> > >
>> > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing something.
>> > > -
>> > > Denis
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <
>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Michael, Denis
>> > > >
>> > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network
>> options
>> > for
>> > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something similar
>> to
>> > > > configure CommunicationSpi
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > [1]
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#ehcache
>> > > > [2]
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
>> > > >
>> > > > Let me know what you think.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > > Saikat
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <mpollind@gmail.com
>> >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation. You
>> can
>> > ask
>> > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
>> > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
>> > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
>> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for
>> > > EachProperty
>> > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the current
>> > > existing
>> > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are
>> setup.
>> > > There
>> > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been
>> pretty
>> > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these annotations
>> work
>> > > in
>> > > > > practice.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Michael,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite
>> > > instances
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a single
>> > > > instance
>> > > > > > only.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration matters
>> of
>> > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could you
>> > > > > recommend
>> > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration
>> > specifies
>> > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
>> mpollind@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the
>> > communicationSpi,
>> > > > so
>> > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
>> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > >
>> > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
>> > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much like
>> > the
>> > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
>> > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>> > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
>> > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just
>> > allowing
>> > > a
>> > > > > > single
>> > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot
>> configuration:
>> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
>> > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the
>> default
>> > > use
>> > > > > case
>> > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as follows:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ignite:
>> > > > > > > enable true
>> > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
>> > > > > > > communication-spi:
>> > > > > > > local-port: 5555
>> > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
>> > > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > > cache-configurations:
>> > > > > > > - name: accounts
>> > > > > > > queryEntities:
>> > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
>> > > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > > - ...
>> > > > > > > ignite-thin:
>> > > > > > > enable: false
>> > > > > > > instance-name: name
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of
>> something
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
>> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <
>> dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Michael,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is
>> used
>> > by
>> > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but
>> > the
>> > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the
>> configuration
>> > > is
>> > > > > > > present.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we
>> shouldn't
>> > > > bother
>> > > > > > > about
>> > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I
>> said
>> > > > before,
>> > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is
>> > designed
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly
>> think
>> > > of a
>> > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot up
>> > > several
>> > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite
>> > > instance
>> > > > > per
>> > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will
>> > > > significantly
>> > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If
>> > anybody
>> > > > > needs
>> > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them
>> > manually.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > By default the
>> > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client
>> > DynamicCache
>> > > > if
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > would be ok?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply
>> disallow
>> > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a
>> thick
>> > or
>> > > > > thin
>> > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already started,
>> > then
>> > > > > throw
>> > > > > > an
>> > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and
>> vice
>> > > > versa).
>> > > > > > As
>> > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut, I
>> > would
>> > > > > > > recommend
>> > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a
>> serverless
>> > > > > function
>> > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while for
>> > > > > > > micro-services
>> > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition
>> was
>> > > > mainly
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
>> > relevant.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about
>> > Micronaut.
>> > > > Let
>> > > > > me
>> > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
>> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > private final String name;
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
>> > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below
>> > without
>> > > > > having
>> > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you
>> getting a
>> > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > ignite:
>> > > > > > > > name: some_name
>> > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
>> > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
>> > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
>> > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together
>> along
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little
>> > > > complicated
>> > > > > > > but I
>> > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > >
>> > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean
>> definition
>> > was
>> > > > > > mainly
>> > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
>> > > relevant.
>> > > > > Will
>> > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might get
>> a
>> > > > little
>> > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
>> > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
>> > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass
>> that
>> > to
>> > > > > > > somewhere
>> > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
>> > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>> > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
>> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
>> > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
>> > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
>> > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is
>> > > declared. I
>> > > > > > think
>> > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If
>> i'm
>> > not
>> > > > > > > mistaken
>> > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the
>> > name
>> > > > > since
>> > > > > > > > that is
>> > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under
>> > > EachProperty.
>> > > > > The
>> > > > > > > > name is
>> > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the
>> > same
>> > > > > > > > qualifier for
>> > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the
>> > > > primary
>> > > > > > bean
>> > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance
>> > > active
>> > > > > at a
>> > > > > > > > time.
>> > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is
>> used
>> > > by
>> > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything
>> but
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > default
>> > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the
>> > configuration
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > > present.
>> > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use
>> one
>> > > > > instance
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again.
>> By
>> > > > > default
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client
>> > > DynamicCache
>> > > > > if
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
>> > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
>> > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
>> > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>> > > > > > > > >>> ...
>> > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>> > > > > > > > >>> ...
>> > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
>> > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
>> > > > > > > > >>> ...
>> > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
>> > > > > > > > >>> ....
>> > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
>> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
>> > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
>> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
>> > > > instances.
>> > > > > > > This
>> > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a
>> thick
>> > or
>> > > > thin
>> > > > > > > > client
>> > > > > > > > >>>> per
>> > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can
>> > utilize
>> > > > all
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > CPUs
>> > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the
>> ability
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > > configure
>> > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I
>> understand,
>> > > > > Micronaut
>> > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
>> > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
>> > > > > > > > property,
>> > > > > > > > >>>> right?
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By
>> > > > looking
>> > > > > at
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >>>> <
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>> > > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >,
>> > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
>> > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >>>> property
>> > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that
>> Micronaut
>> > > > could
>> > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
>> > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared
>> > these
>> > > > > > > > properties
>> > > > > > > > >>>> table
>> > > > > > > > >>>> <
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
>> > > > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the
>> thin
>> > > > client
>> > > > > > in a
>> > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
>> > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
>> > > > > ClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
>> > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some
>> settings
>> > > such
>> > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this
>> sound
>> > > > > > accurate
>> > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just
>> swap
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > "path"
>> > > > > > > > >>>> that
>> > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
>> > IgniteConfiguration.
>> > > > > Then
>> > > > > > > let
>> > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults
>> and
>> > > > allow a
>> > > > > > > > >>>> developer
>> > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as
>> discoverySPI.ipFinder
>> > or
>> > > > > memory
>> > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
>> IgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > defaults
>> > > > > > > > here
>> > > > > > > > >>>> <
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
>> > > > > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> .
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> -
>> > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
>> > > > instances.
>> > > > > > > This
>> > > > > > > > >>>> is what
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was
>> > > > > originally
>> > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite
>> > instance
>> > > > but
>> > > > > > > found
>> > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what
>> > > defaults
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > > > set
>> > > > > > > > >>>> for
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items
>> can't
>> > be
>> > > > > > covered
>> > > > > > > > >>>> with how
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
>> @ConfigurationProperty
>> > > can
>> > > > > > only
>> > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have
>> > > multiple
>> > > > > > > > factories
>> > > > > > > > >>>> and
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets
>> overwhelming.
>> > In
>> > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > >>>> situation
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal
>> in
>> > > this
>> > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be
>> > able
>> > > to
>> > > > > > cover
>> > > > > > > > >>>> enough
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default:
>> > > > > address:
>> > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
>> > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
>> > > > > > "
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
>> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section
>> and
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > current
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > version
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
>> > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
>> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
>> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
>> > > as
>> > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > > done
>> > > > > > > > >>>> for
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
>> > > > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
>> > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the
>> > developers
>> > > > > might
>> > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > > > >>>> to
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
>> > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to
>> the
>> > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > clients
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and
>> "path". I
>> > > > would
>> > > > > > > > replace
>> > > > > > > > >>>> the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that
>> instantiates
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do
>> > that,
>> > > > > then
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
>> > > > > IgniteConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >>>> straight
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > in
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite
>> > > Spring
>> > > > > > Boot
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>> > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible,
>> then I
>> > > > would
>> > > > > > > > rework
>> > > > > > > > >>>> the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly,
>> taking
>> > > our
>> > > > > > Spring
>> > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
>> > > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
>> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename
>> > > > "configuration"
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can
>> pass
>> > the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format
>> below:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get
>> > > wrapped
>> > > > > > into a
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the
>> > > relevant
>> > > > > > > sections
>> > > > > > > > >>>> of
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > code
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the
>> > > methods
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > get
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > called
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from.
>> Hopefully
>> > > this
>> > > > > > helps.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> The key
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > is
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but
>> this
>> > can
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > > changed
>> > > > > > > > >>>> if
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default
>> it
>> > > uses
>> > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>> > > > > > >
>> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/
>> > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and
>> how
>> > > this
>> > > > > > could
>> > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put
>> if
>> > the
>> > > > > value
>> > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > >>>> not
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is
>> > null
>> > > > > else
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > >>>> will
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code
>> > > > because I
>> > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer
>> > and
>> > > > > write
>> > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by
>> > the
>> > > > key.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
>> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
>> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
>> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
>> > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using
>> > > > @CachePut,
>> > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations
>> and I
>> > > was
>> > > > > > > trying
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would
>> be
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > underlying
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those
>> > operations
>> > > > are
>> > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below
>> method
>> > > then
>> > > > > how
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> result
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > of
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name,
>> { 0
>> > })
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael
>> Pollind <
>> > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean
>> this
>> > > > would
>> > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > > > >>>> to be
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into
>> multiple
>> > > > > > modules.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also
>> have
>> > > > > > > ignite-data
>> > > > > > > > >>>> but
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > that
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly
>> but
>> > > the
>> > > > > > basic
>> > > > > > > > >>>> config is
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API
>> > described
>> > > > in
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the
>> moment
>> > > I'm
>> > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > > > >>>> an
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how
>> that
>> > > would
>> > > > > fit
>> > > > > > > > into
>> > > > > > > > >>>> this
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity
>> but
>> > > I'm
>> > > > > sure
>> > > > > > > > >>>> something
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate
>> module
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this
>> > module
>> > > > also
>> > > > > > > has a
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache
>> > are
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > two
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways
>> to
>> > > > define
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache
>> and
>> > > > > > SyncCache
>> > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > >>>> they
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use
>> the
>> > > name
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> instance
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the
>> > > > > > documentation
>> > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > >>>> believe
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want
>> and
>> > > > > > Hazelcast
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > implements
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the
>> > yaml
>> > > > > > > > >>>> configuration in
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache
>> > > names
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > >>>> provided
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > along
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also
>> be
>> > > setup
>> > > > > > > where a
>> > > > > > > > >>>> list
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > of
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped
>> to a
>> > > > > > > > >>>> configuration if
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > that
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/
>> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat
>> Maitra <
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have
>> any
>> > > > > > questions
>> > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > respect
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration
>> and
>> > > > wanted
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > > ask
>> > > > > > > > >>>> if
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > these
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for
>> > the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> micronaut-ignite
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > integration.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is
>> cacheable
>> > > > within
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> given
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > cache
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > name
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value
>> > of a
>> > > > > > method
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > invocation
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original
>> > > > operation
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > never
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > skipped.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation
>> > of a
>> > > > > > method
>> > > > > > > > >>>> should
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > cause
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details
>> in
>> > dev
>> > > > > list,
>> > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > >>>> great
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > to
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > learn
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Saikat
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael
>> > > Pollind <
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the
>> > > > details
>> > > > > > over
>> > > > > > > > >>>> the next
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > few
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > days
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis
>> Magda
>> > <
>> > > > > > > > >>>> dmagda@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki
>> pages
>> > in
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > namespace.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by
>> > > sending
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > note
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > >>>> the
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org
>> address.
>> > > > > > Otherwise,
>> > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > >>>> need
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > to
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > approve
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael
>> > > > Pollind
>> > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >
>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action
>> > > ?
>> > > > > > > username=mpollind
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull
>> request
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > I've
>> > > > > > > > put
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > together:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> --
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
>> > > > > > > > >>>> >
>> > > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > -
>> > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
Dennis,
oh, so I made those adjustments. I must have missed it because that didn't
occur to me. So DefaultIgniteConfiguration is fine, but ClientConfiguration
is a final class so that can't be extended from. This PR is starting to
shape up from my perspective, I just need to update the documentation. The
other thing I did was add a flag for the associated cache to use
micronuat-cache. umm, I'll play with this a bit and see If I can work out
something better. ignite.enabled can be false but you can provide your own
bean in place but that doesn't seem quite right.
[image: image.png]
https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:29 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Thanks, for verifying.
>
> I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are just
> > placed into wrapper classes.
>
>
> Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default configuration for its
> thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast core:
>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
>
> Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their Micronaut's
> HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following configuration
> parameteres:
>
> - Some fields of primitive types that belong to the parent ClientConfig
> class. They do this by adding this - *includes = {"properties",
> "instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
> - ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig, SocketOptions properties
> (that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be inherited as
> above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder manually.
>
> As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and here is a
> final list of configuration properties:
>
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
>
> Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's start with the
> thin client. It's much simpler.
>
>
> > yea, will need to
> > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no way
> a
> > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that out
> > yet.
>
>
> That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me know if you need
> me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
>
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dennis,
> >
> > This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > and
> >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
> >
> > test cases:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
> >
> > I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> > getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are just
> > placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think ConfigurationProperty
> > is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the documentation is
> > generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think this will
> work
> > cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest @EachProperty in a
> single
> > @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how stuff gets
> resolved
> > (https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938). so
> the
> > cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a first working
> > example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea, will need to
> > setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no way
> a
> > full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that out
> > yet.
> >
> > If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael,
> > >
> > > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration specificities. What
> > confused
> > > me before, is that even though the beans configuration in Micronaut
> looks
> > > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former automates a lot
> > with
> > > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default Spring Boot
> > > configuration looks
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/IgniteClientConfigurer.java
> > > >
> > > like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible property
> of
> > an
> > > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > >.
> > > The upside of the reflection.
> > >
> > > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would suggest.
> > >
> > > *Ignite Thin Client*
> > >
> > >
> > > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that *extends*
> Ignite's
> > > ClientConfiguration
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/ClientConfiguration.java
> > > >.
> > > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
> > ClientConfiguration
> > > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you were doing
> > > that
> > > before I joined the review)
> > > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of custom
> > > non-primitive types and should be added into the
> > > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
> > @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
> > > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
> > >
> > > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we support another
> > > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is created
> > > programmatically in the source code and the integration uses that bean
> to
> > > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
> > > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set the
> properties
> > > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the ClientConfiguration bean
> is
> > > created programmatically in Spring Boot
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-programmatically
> > > >and
> > > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
> > >
> > > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
> > >
> > > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous configuration
> > > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > >
> > > .
> > >
> > > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most frequently used
> > > configuration parameters and add them to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems reasonable if
> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's IgniteConfiguration (so
> > > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types). Based on my
> > > experience, I would add the following settings of custom non-primitive
> > > types:
> > >
> > > - TcpDiscoverySpi
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/TcpDiscoverySpi.java
> > > >
> > > with
> > > all its fields of primitive types (this should be done easily,
> right,
> > > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the beginning, I
> would
> > > only
> > > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
> > > >
> > > and
> > > KubernetesIpFinder
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
> > > >via
> > > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > > - DataStorageConfiguration
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/DataStorageConfiguration.java
> > > >
> > > including
> > > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
> > > - TcpCommunicationSpi
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
> > > >
> > > with
> > > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm assuming that we
> can
> > > do
> > > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through @ConfigurationBuilder
> > > (include)
> > > or inheritence.
> > >
> > > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to create an
> > > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to initialize an
> > > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
> > >
> > > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing something.
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Michael, Denis
> > > >
> > > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network options
> > for
> > > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something similar to
> > > > configure CommunicationSpi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
> > > >
> > > > Let me know what you think.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Saikat
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation. You can
> > ask
> > > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> > > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> > > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for
> > > EachProperty
> > > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the current
> > > existing
> > > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are setup.
> > > There
> > > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been
> pretty
> > > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these annotations
> work
> > > in
> > > > > practice.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite
> > > instances
> > > > > is
> > > > > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a single
> > > > instance
> > > > > > only.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration matters
> of
> > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could you
> > > > > recommend
> > > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration
> > specifies
> > > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the
> > communicationSpi,
> > > > so
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > >
> > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much like
> > the
> > > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just
> > allowing
> > > a
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot configuration:
> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the
> default
> > > use
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as follows:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > > enable true
> > > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > > > > > > communication-spi:
> > > > > > > local-port: 5555
> > > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > cache-configurations:
> > > > > > > - name: accounts
> > > > > > > queryEntities:
> > > > > > > - tableName: NAME
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > - ...
> > > > > > > ignite-thin:
> > > > > > > enable: false
> > > > > > > instance-name: name
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of
> something
> > > > that
> > > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used
> > by
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but
> > the
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the
> configuration
> > > is
> > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we
> shouldn't
> > > > bother
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I said
> > > > before,
> > > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is
> > designed
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly
> think
> > > of a
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot up
> > > several
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite
> > > instance
> > > > > per
> > > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will
> > > > significantly
> > > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If
> > anybody
> > > > > needs
> > > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them
> > manually.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > By default the
> > > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client
> > DynamicCache
> > > > if
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > would be ok?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply
> disallow
> > > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a
> thick
> > or
> > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already started,
> > then
> > > > > throw
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and vice
> > > > versa).
> > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut, I
> > would
> > > > > > > recommend
> > > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a
> serverless
> > > > > function
> > > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while for
> > > > > > > micro-services
> > > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition
> was
> > > > mainly
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
> > relevant.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about
> > Micronaut.
> > > > Let
> > > > > me
> > > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > private final String name;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below
> > without
> > > > > having
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you
> getting a
> > > > > > > > NullPointerException?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > > > name: some_name
> > > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > > > communicationSpi:
> > > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together
> along
> > > > with
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little
> > > > complicated
> > > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > > think it's doable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > >
> > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition
> > was
> > > > > > mainly
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
> > > relevant.
> > > > > Will
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might get a
> > > > little
> > > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass
> that
> > to
> > > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> private final String name;
> > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> > > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
> > > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is
> > > declared. I
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If i'm
> > not
> > > > > > > mistaken
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the
> > name
> > > > > since
> > > > > > > > that is
> > > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under
> > > EachProperty.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > > name is
> > > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the
> > same
> > > > > > > > qualifier for
> > > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the
> > > > primary
> > > > > > bean
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance
> > > active
> > > > > at a
> > > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is
> used
> > > by
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything
> but
> > > the
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the
> > configuration
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use one
> > > > > instance
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again.
> By
> > > > > default
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client
> > > DynamicCache
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> ignite:
> > > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > > > >>> ....
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
> > > > instances.
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick
> > or
> > > > thin
> > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > >>>> per
> > > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can
> > utilize
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > CPUs
> > > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the
> ability
> > > to
> > > > > > > > configure
> > > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I understand,
> > > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
> > > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > > > > > > property,
> > > > > > > > >>>> right?
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By
> > > > looking
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > > > > > > >>>> >,
> > > > > > > > >>>> that defines
> > > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> property
> > > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that
> Micronaut
> > > > could
> > > > > > > > >>>> introspect
> > > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared
> > these
> > > > > > > > properties
> > > > > > > > >>>> table
> > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> >.
> > > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin
> > > > client
> > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > >>>> YAML
> > > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
> > > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some
> settings
> > > such
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this
> sound
> > > > > > accurate
> > > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just
> swap
> > > the
> > > > > > > "path"
> > > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
> > IgniteConfiguration.
> > > > > Then
> > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and
> > > > allow a
> > > > > > > > >>>> developer
> > > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder
> > or
> > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find
> IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > defaults
> > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> .
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> -
> > > > > > > > >>>> Denis
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
> > > > instances.
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was
> > > > > originally
> > > > > > > > >>>> trying to
> > > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite
> > instance
> > > > but
> > > > > > > found
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what
> > > defaults
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't
> > be
> > > > > > covered
> > > > > > > > >>>> with how
> > > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations.
> @ConfigurationProperty
> > > can
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have
> > > multiple
> > > > > > > > factories
> > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming.
> > In
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >>>> situation
> > > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal
> in
> > > this
> > > > > > > > >>>> situation when
> > > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be
> > able
> > > to
> > > > > > cover
> > > > > > > > >>>> enough
> > > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default:
> > > > > address:
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
> > > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
> > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > >>>> > version
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to
> DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > > as
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > > > >>>> > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > > > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the
> > developers
> > > > > might
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to
> the
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > clients
> > > > > > > > >>>> > only.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path".
> I
> > > > would
> > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do
> > that,
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
> > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> straight
> > > > > > > > >>>> > in
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite
> > > Spring
> > > > > > Boot
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible,
> then I
> > > > would
> > > > > > > > rework
> > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly,
> taking
> > > our
> > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > >>>> Boot
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > already
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename
> > > > "configuration"
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>> "config",
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > and
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass
> > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> transactional
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format below:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > -
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get
> > > wrapped
> > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the
> > > relevant
> > > > > > > sections
> > > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > > >>>> > code
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the
> > > methods
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > >>>> > called
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully
> > > this
> > > > > > helps.
> > > > > > > > >>>> The key
> > > > > > > > >>>> > is
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > there
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default
> it
> > > uses
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/
> > > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > .
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and
> how
> > > this
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if
> > the
> > > > > value
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > present
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is
> > null
> > > > > else
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code
> > > > because I
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer
> > and
> > > > > write
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by
> > the
> > > > key.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using
> > > > @CachePut,
> > > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations
> and I
> > > was
> > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would
> be
> > > the
> > > > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those
> > operations
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > >>>> performed?
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below method
> > > then
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> result
> > > > > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, {
> 0
> > })
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind
> <
> > > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean
> this
> > > > would
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > >>>> to be
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into
> multiple
> > > > > > modules.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also
> have
> > > > > > > ignite-data
> > > > > > > > >>>> but
> > > > > > > > >>>> > that
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly
> but
> > > the
> > > > > > basic
> > > > > > > > >>>> config is
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API
> > described
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > make
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the
> moment
> > > I'm
> > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that
> > > would
> > > > > fit
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity
> but
> > > I'm
> > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > >>>> something
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate
> module
> > > > that
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this
> > module
> > > > also
> > > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache
> > are
> > > > the
> > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to
> > > > define
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache
> and
> > > > > > SyncCache
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >>>> they
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > also
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the
> > > name
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> instance
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the
> > > > > > documentation
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >>>> believe
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > for
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want
> and
> > > > > > Hazelcast
> > > > > > > > >>>> > implements
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the
> > yaml
> > > > > > > > >>>> configuration in
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache
> > > names
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >>>> provided
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > along
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be
> > > setup
> > > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > >>>> list
> > > > > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped
> to a
> > > > > > > > >>>> configuration if
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > that
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/
> > > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra
> <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have
> any
> > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > respect
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration and
> > > > wanted
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > > > > >>>> > these
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for
> > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> micronaut-ignite
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > integration.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable
> > > > within
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> given
> > > > > > > > >>>> > cache
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > name
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value
> > of a
> > > > > > method
> > > > > > > > >>>> > invocation
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original
> > > > operation
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > never
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > skipped.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation
> > of a
> > > > > > method
> > > > > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > cause
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in
> > dev
> > > > > list,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >>>> great
> > > > > > > > >>>> > to
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > learn
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael
> > > Pollind <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the
> > > > details
> > > > > > over
> > > > > > > > >>>> the next
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > few
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > days
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis
> Magda
> > <
> > > > > > > > >>>> dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > namespace.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by
> > > sending
> > > > a
> > > > > > note
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org
> address.
> > > > > > Otherwise,
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >>>> need
> > > > > > > > >>>> > to
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > approve
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael
> > > > Pollind
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action
> > > ?
> > > > > > > username=mpollind
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull
> request
> > > > that
> > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > put
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > together:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Michael,
Thanks, for verifying.
I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are just
> placed into wrapper classes.
Have a look at how Hazelcast implemented the default configuration for its
thin client by extending ClientConfig class of Hazelcast core:
https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-hazelcast/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/hazelcast/HazelcastClientConfiguration.java
Some observations. After extending ClientConfig, their Micronaut's
HazelcastClientConfiguration exposes the following configuration
parameteres:
- Some fields of primitive types that belong to the parent ClientConfig
class. They do this by adding this - *includes = {"properties",
"instanceName", "labels", "userContext", "clusterName"}*
- ClientNetworkConfig, ConnectionRetryConfig, SocketOptions properties
(that exist in the parent ClientConfig class) can not be inherited as
above. Thus, they define those with @ConfigurationBuilder manually.
As a result, their implementation is simple and compact, and here is a
final list of configuration properties:
https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.cache.hazelcast.HazelcastClientConfiguration
Could you check if we can follow a similar approach? Let's start with the
thin client. It's much simpler.
> yea, will need to
> setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no way a
> full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that out
> yet.
That will be outstanding and fit well the design. Let me know if you need
me to help to figure out how to do that with Micronaut.
-
Denis
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:52 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> and
>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
>
> test cases:
>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
>
> I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
> getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are just
> placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think ConfigurationProperty
> is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the documentation is
> generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think this will work
> cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest @EachProperty in a single
> @ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how stuff gets resolved
> (https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938). so the
> cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a first working
> example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea, will need to
> setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no way a
> full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that out
> yet.
>
> If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Michael,
> >
> > Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration specificities. What
> confused
> > me before, is that even though the beans configuration in Micronaut looks
> > quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former automates a lot
> with
> > the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default Spring Boot
> > configuration looks
> > <
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/IgniteClientConfigurer.java
> > >
> > like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible property of
> an
> > IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
> > <
> >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > >.
> > The upside of the reflection.
> >
> > Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would suggest.
> >
> > *Ignite Thin Client*
> >
> >
> > - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that *extends* Ignite's
> > ClientConfiguration
> > <
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/ClientConfiguration.java
> > >.
> > Once done, it will be possible to configure most of
> ClientConfiguration
> > settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you were doing
> > that
> > before I joined the review)
> > - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of custom
> > non-primitive types and should be added into the
> > DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the
> @ConfigurationBuilder
> > annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
> > sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
> >
> > Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we support another
> > configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is created
> > programmatically in the source code and the integration uses that bean to
> > initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
> > using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set the properties
> > via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the ClientConfiguration bean is
> > created programmatically in Spring Boot
> > <
> >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-programmatically
> > >and
> > our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
> >
> > *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
> >
> > Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous configuration
> > parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
> > <
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/IgniteConfiguration.java
> > >
> > .
> >
> > So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most frequently used
> > configuration parameters and add them to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems reasonable if
> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's IgniteConfiguration (so
> > that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types). Based on my
> > experience, I would add the following settings of custom non-primitive
> > types:
> >
> > - TcpDiscoverySpi
> > <
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/TcpDiscoverySpi.java
> > >
> > with
> > all its fields of primitive types (this should be done easily, right,
> > without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the beginning, I would
> > only
> > support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
> > <
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
> > >
> > and
> > KubernetesIpFinder
> > <
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
> > >via
> > the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> > - DataStorageConfiguration
> > <
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/DataStorageConfiguration.java
> > >
> > including
> > its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
> > - TcpCommunicationSpi
> > <
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
> > >
> > with
> > its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm assuming that we can
> > do
> > this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through @ConfigurationBuilder
> > (include)
> > or inheritence.
> >
> > If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to create an
> > IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to initialize an
> > Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
> >
> > What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing something.
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Michael, Denis
> > >
> > > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network options
> for
> > > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something similar to
> > > configure CommunicationSpi
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
> > >
> > > Let me know what you think.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Saikat
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation. You can
> ask
> > > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> > > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> > > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for
> > EachProperty
> > > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the current
> > existing
> > > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are setup.
> > There
> > > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been pretty
> > > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these annotations work
> > in
> > > > practice.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Michael,
> > > > >
> > > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite
> > instances
> > > > is
> > > > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a single
> > > instance
> > > > > only.
> > > > >
> > > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration matters of
> > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could you
> > > > recommend
> > > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration
> specifies
> > > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <mpollind@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the
> communicationSpi,
> > > so
> > > > > you
> > > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > >
> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > > > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much like
> the
> > > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just
> allowing
> > a
> > > > > single
> > > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot configuration:
> > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the default
> > use
> > > > case
> > > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as follows:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > enable true
> > > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > > > > > communication-spi:
> > > > > > local-port: 5555
> > > > > > data-storage-configuration:
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > cache-configurations:
> > > > > > - name: accounts
> > > > > > queryEntities:
> > > > > > - tableName: NAME
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > - ...
> > > > > > ignite-thin:
> > > > > > enable: false
> > > > > > instance-name: name
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of something
> > > that
> > > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used
> by
> > > > > default
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but
> the
> > > > > default
> > > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration
> > is
> > > > > > present.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we shouldn't
> > > bother
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I said
> > > before,
> > > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is
> designed
> > > for
> > > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly think
> > of a
> > > > use
> > > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot up
> > several
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite
> > instance
> > > > per
> > > > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will
> > > significantly
> > > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If
> anybody
> > > > needs
> > > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them
> manually.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By default the
> > > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client
> DynamicCache
> > > if
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > would be ok?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply disallow
> > > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a thick
> or
> > > > thin
> > > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already started,
> then
> > > > throw
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and vice
> > > versa).
> > > > > As
> > > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut, I
> would
> > > > > > recommend
> > > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a serverless
> > > > function
> > > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while for
> > > > > > micro-services
> > > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was
> > > mainly
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
> relevant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about
> Micronaut.
> > > Let
> > > > me
> > > > > > > double-check the following with you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > private final String name;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below
> without
> > > > having
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you getting a
> > > > > > > NullPointerException?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > > name: some_name
> > > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > > communicationSpi:
> > > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together along
> > > with
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little
> > > complicated
> > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > think it's doable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > >
> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition
> was
> > > > > mainly
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
> > relevant.
> > > > Will
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might get a
> > > little
> > > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass that
> to
> > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> private final String name;
> > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> > > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
> > > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is
> > declared. I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If i'm
> not
> > > > > > mistaken
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the
> name
> > > > since
> > > > > > > that is
> > > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under
> > EachProperty.
> > > > The
> > > > > > > name is
> > > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the
> same
> > > > > > > qualifier for
> > > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the
> > > primary
> > > > > bean
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance
> > active
> > > > at a
> > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used
> > by
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but
> > the
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the
> configuration
> > > is
> > > > > > > present.
> > > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use one
> > > > instance
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again. By
> > > > default
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client
> > DynamicCache
> > > > if
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>> would be ok?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> ignite:
> > > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > > >>> ....
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
> > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
> > > instances.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick
> or
> > > thin
> > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > >>>> per
> > > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can
> utilize
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > CPUs
> > > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the ability
> > to
> > > > > > > configure
> > > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I understand,
> > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
> > "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > > > > > property,
> > > > > > > >>>> right?
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By
> > > looking
> > > > at
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > > > > > >>>> >,
> > > > > > > >>>> that defines
> > > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >>>> property
> > > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that Micronaut
> > > could
> > > > > > > >>>> introspect
> > > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared
> these
> > > > > > > properties
> > > > > > > >>>> table
> > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >>>> >.
> > > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin
> > > client
> > > > > in a
> > > > > > > >>>> YAML
> > > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
> > > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some settings
> > such
> > > > as
> > > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this sound
> > > > > accurate
> > > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just swap
> > the
> > > > > > "path"
> > > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is
> IgniteConfiguration.
> > > > Then
> > > > > > let
> > > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and
> > > allow a
> > > > > > > >>>> developer
> > > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder
> or
> > > > memory
> > > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find IgniteConfiguration
> > > > defaults
> > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>> .
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> -
> > > > > > > >>>> Denis
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
> > > instances.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was
> > > > originally
> > > > > > > >>>> trying to
> > > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite
> instance
> > > but
> > > > > > found
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what
> > defaults
> > > > are
> > > > > > set
> > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't
> be
> > > > > covered
> > > > > > > >>>> with how
> > > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations. @ConfigurationProperty
> > can
> > > > > only
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have
> > multiple
> > > > > > > factories
> > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming.
> In
> > > > this
> > > > > > > >>>> situation
> > > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal in
> > this
> > > > > > > >>>> situation when
> > > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be
> able
> > to
> > > > > cover
> > > > > > > >>>> enough
> > > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default:
> > > > address:
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
> > > > 127.0.0.1:10801
> > > > > "
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and
> > the
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > > >>>> > version
> > > > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > class,
> > > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > >>>> (or, to
> > > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> > as
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > > >>>> > the
> > > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >).
> > > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the
> developers
> > > > might
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to the
> > > Ignite
> > > > > > > clients
> > > > > > > >>>> > only.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I
> > > would
> > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
> > > > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do
> that,
> > > > then
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> > > developers
> > > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
> > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > > >>>> straight
> > > > > > > >>>> > in
> > > > > > > >>>> > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite
> > Spring
> > > > > Boot
> > > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I
> > > would
> > > > > > > rework
> > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking
> > our
> > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > >>>> Boot
> > > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
> > > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > already
> > > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename
> > > "configuration"
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>> "config",
> > > > > > > >>>> > > and
> > > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass
> the
> > > > > > > >>>> transactional
> > > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format below:
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > name:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > config:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > -
> > > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get
> > wrapped
> > > > > into a
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the
> > relevant
> > > > > > sections
> > > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>> > code
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the
> > methods
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > >>>> > called
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully
> > this
> > > > > helps.
> > > > > > > >>>> The key
> > > > > > > >>>> > is
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this
> can
> > > be
> > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > > > >>>> > > there
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default it
> > uses
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/
> > > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > > >>>> > > .
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how
> > this
> > > > > could
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if
> the
> > > > value
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > > > >>>> > > present
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is
> null
> > > > else
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code
> > > because I
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer
> and
> > > > write
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > >>>> > > additional
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by
> the
> > > key.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using
> > > @CachePut,
> > > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I
> > was
> > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would be
> > the
> > > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those
> operations
> > > are
> > > > > > > >>>> performed?
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below method
> > then
> > > > how
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> result
> > > > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0
> })
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this
> > > would
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > >>>> to be
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into multiple
> > > > > modules.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have
> > > > > > ignite-data
> > > > > > > >>>> but
> > > > > > > >>>> > that
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > will
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but
> > the
> > > > > basic
> > > > > > > >>>> config is
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API
> described
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> wiki and
> > > > > > > >>>> > > make
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment
> > I'm
> > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that
> > would
> > > > fit
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but
> > I'm
> > > > sure
> > > > > > > >>>> something
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > could
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module
> > > that
> > > > > can
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this
> module
> > > also
> > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache
> are
> > > the
> > > > > two
> > > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > that
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to
> > > define
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and
> > > > > SyncCache
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >>>> they
> > > > > > > >>>> > > also
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the
> > name
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> instance
> > > > > > > >>>> > > to
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the
> > > > > documentation
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >>>> believe
> > > > > > > >>>> > > for
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and
> > > > > Hazelcast
> > > > > > > >>>> > implements
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the
> yaml
> > > > > > > >>>> configuration in
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache
> > names
> > > > are
> > > > > > > >>>> provided
> > > > > > > >>>> > > along
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > with
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be
> > setup
> > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > >>>> list
> > > > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a
> > > > > > > >>>> configuration if
> > > > > > > >>>> > > that
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/
> > > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > > > >>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any
> > > > > questions
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >>>> > > respect
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration and
> > > wanted
> > > > to
> > > > > > ask
> > > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > > > >>>> > these
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for
> the
> > > > > > > >>>> micronaut-ignite
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > integration.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable
> > > within
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> given
> > > > > > > >>>> > cache
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > name
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value
> of a
> > > > > method
> > > > > > > >>>> > invocation
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > should
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original
> > > operation
> > > > is
> > > > > > > never
> > > > > > > >>>> > > skipped.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation
> of a
> > > > > method
> > > > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > > > >>>> > > cause
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in
> dev
> > > > list,
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >>>> great
> > > > > > > >>>> > to
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > learn
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael
> > Pollind <
> > > > > > > >>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the
> > > details
> > > > > over
> > > > > > > >>>> the next
> > > > > > > >>>> > > few
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > days
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda
> <
> > > > > > > >>>> dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >>>> > > namespace.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by
> > sending
> > > a
> > > > > note
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address.
> > > > > Otherwise,
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >>>> need
> > > > > > > >>>> > to
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > approve
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael
> > > Pollind
> > > > <
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action
> > ?
> > > > > > username=mpollind
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request
> > > that
> > > > > I've
> > > > > > > put
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > together:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
Dennis,
This is what I came up with with some of the suggestions:
https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
and
https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultCacheConfiguration.java
test cases:
https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/3e1529ca4a40c2eb00793e344a36bb48d2a7d3fe/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy
I've tried extending ClientConfiguration but couldn't get the
getters/setters working with ConfigurationBuilder. Instead they are just
placed into wrapper classes. Anyways, I don't think ConfigurationProperty
is supposed to work this way. Also note the table in the documentation is
generated and without a way to exclude things I don't think this will work
cleanly. The other thing I wanted to do was nest @EachProperty in a single
@ConfigurationProperties but that doesn't work with how stuff gets resolved
(https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-core/issues/3938). so the
cachConfiguration is in another class. This is kind of a first working
example so this will need to be adjusted quite a bit. yea, will need to
setup a way for a user to provide their own bean because there is no way a
full configuration could be covered but I haven't quite worked that out
yet.
If this is ok then I can do another pass on the confluence.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:55 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration specificities. What confused
> me before, is that even though the beans configuration in Micronaut looks
> quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former automates a lot with
> the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default Spring Boot
> configuration looks
> <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/IgniteClientConfigurer.java
> >
> like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible property of an
> IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
> <
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> >.
> The upside of the reflection.
>
> Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would suggest.
>
> *Ignite Thin Client*
>
>
> - Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that *extends* Ignite's
> ClientConfiguration
> <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/ClientConfiguration.java
> >.
> Once done, it will be possible to configure most of ClientConfiguration
> settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you were doing
> that
> before I joined the review)
> - Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of custom
> non-primitive types and should be added into the
> DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the @ConfigurationBuilder
> annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
> sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
>
> Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we support another
> configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is created
> programmatically in the source code and the integration uses that bean to
> initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
> using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set the properties
> via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the ClientConfiguration bean is
> created programmatically in Spring Boot
> <
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-programmatically
> >and
> our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
>
> *Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
>
> Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous configuration
> parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
> <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/IgniteConfiguration.java
> >
> .
>
> So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most frequently used
> configuration parameters and add them to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems reasonable if
> DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's IgniteConfiguration (so
> that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types). Based on my
> experience, I would add the following settings of custom non-primitive
> types:
>
> - TcpDiscoverySpi
> <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/TcpDiscoverySpi.java
> >
> with
> all its fields of primitive types (this should be done easily, right,
> without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the beginning, I would
> only
> support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
> <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java
> >
> and
> KubernetesIpFinder
> <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java
> >via
> the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
> - DataStorageConfiguration
> <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/DataStorageConfiguration.java
> >
> including
> its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
> - TcpCommunicationSpi
> <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java
> >
> with
> its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm assuming that we can
> do
> this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through @ConfigurationBuilder
> (include)
> or inheritence.
>
> If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
> DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to create an
> IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to initialize an
> Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
>
> What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing something.
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael, Denis
> >
> > I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network options for
> > Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something similar to
> > configure CommunicationSpi
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
> >
> > Let me know what you think.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Saikat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation. You can ask
> > > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> > > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> > > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for
> EachProperty
> > > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the current
> existing
> > > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are setup.
> There
> > > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been pretty
> > > helpful in the past in working out how some of these annotations work
> in
> > > practice.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael,
> > > >
> > > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite
> instances
> > > is
> > > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a single
> > instance
> > > > only.
> > > >
> > > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration matters of
> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could you
> > > recommend
> > > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration specifies
> > > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the communicationSpi,
> > so
> > > > you
> > > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > >
> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much like the
> > > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just allowing
> a
> > > > single
> > > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot configuration:
> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the default
> use
> > > case
> > > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > ignite:
> > > > > enable true
> > > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > > > > communication-spi:
> > > > > local-port: 5555
> > > > > data-storage-configuration:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > cache-configurations:
> > > > > - name: accounts
> > > > > queryEntities:
> > > > > - tableName: NAME
> > > > > ...
> > > > > - ...
> > > > > ignite-thin:
> > > > > enable: false
> > > > > instance-name: name
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of something
> > that
> > > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by
> > > > default
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the
> > > > default
> > > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration
> is
> > > > > present.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we shouldn't
> > bother
> > > > > about
> > > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I said
> > before,
> > > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is designed
> > for
> > > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly think
> of a
> > > use
> > > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot up
> several
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite
> instance
> > > per
> > > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will
> > significantly
> > > > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If anybody
> > > needs
> > > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them manually.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By default the
> > > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache
> > if
> > > > that
> > > > > > > would be ok?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply disallow
> > > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a thick or
> > > thin
> > > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already started, then
> > > throw
> > > > an
> > > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and vice
> > versa).
> > > > As
> > > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut, I would
> > > > > recommend
> > > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a serverless
> > > function
> > > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while for
> > > > > micro-services
> > > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was
> > mainly
> > > > for
> > > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about Micronaut.
> > Let
> > > me
> > > > > > double-check the following with you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the
> DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > private final String name;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below without
> > > having
> > > > > it
> > > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you getting a
> > > > > > NullPointerException?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ignite:
> > > > > > name: some_name
> > > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > > > > communicationSpi:
> > > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together along
> > with
> > > > some
> > > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little
> > complicated
> > > > > but I
> > > > > > > think it's doable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > >
> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was
> > > > mainly
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most
> relevant.
> > > Will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might get a
> > little
> > > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass that to
> > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> private final String name;
> > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> > > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
> > > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is
> declared. I
> > > > think
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If i'm not
> > > > > mistaken
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the name
> > > since
> > > > > > that is
> > > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under
> EachProperty.
> > > The
> > > > > > name is
> > > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the same
> > > > > > qualifier for
> > > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the
> > primary
> > > > bean
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance
> active
> > > at a
> > > > > > time.
> > > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used
> by
> > > > > default
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but
> the
> > > > > default
> > > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration
> > is
> > > > > > present.
> > > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use one
> > > instance
> > > > of
> > > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again. By
> > > default
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client
> DynamicCache
> > > if
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >>> would be ok?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> ignite:
> > > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > > >>> ....
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
> > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
> > instances.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick or
> > thin
> > > > > > client
> > > > > > >>>> per
> > > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can utilize
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > CPUs
> > > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the ability
> to
> > > > > > configure
> > > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I understand,
> > > Micronaut
> > > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the
> "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > > > > property,
> > > > > > >>>> right?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By
> > looking
> > > at
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > > > > >>>> >,
> > > > > > >>>> that defines
> > org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >>>> property
> > > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that Micronaut
> > could
> > > > > > >>>> introspect
> > > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared these
> > > > > > properties
> > > > > > >>>> table
> > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >>>> >.
> > > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin
> > client
> > > > in a
> > > > > > >>>> YAML
> > > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
> > > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some settings
> such
> > > as
> > > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this sound
> > > > accurate
> > > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just swap
> the
> > > > > "path"
> > > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is IgniteConfiguration.
> > > Then
> > > > > let
> > > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and
> > allow a
> > > > > > >>>> developer
> > > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder or
> > > memory
> > > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find IgniteConfiguration
> > > defaults
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>> .
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> -
> > > > > > >>>> Denis
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
> > instances.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was
> > > originally
> > > > > > >>>> trying to
> > > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite instance
> > but
> > > > > found
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what
> defaults
> > > are
> > > > > set
> > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't be
> > > > covered
> > > > > > >>>> with how
> > > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations. @ConfigurationProperty
> can
> > > > only
> > > > > be
> > > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have
> multiple
> > > > > > factories
> > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming. In
> > > this
> > > > > > >>>> situation
> > > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal in
> this
> > > > > > >>>> situation when
> > > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be able
> to
> > > > cover
> > > > > > >>>> enough
> > > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default:
> > > address:
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
> > > 127.0.0.1:10801
> > > > "
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
> > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and
> the
> > > > > current
> > > > > > >>>> > version
> > > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > >
> > >
> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > class,
> > > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
> > > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > >>>> (or, to
> > > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration
> as
> > > it's
> > > > > > done
> > > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > > >>>> > the
> > > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > > > > >>>> > > >).
> > > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the developers
> > > might
> > > > > need
> > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to the
> > Ignite
> > > > > > clients
> > > > > > >>>> > only.
> > > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I
> > would
> > > > > > replace
> > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
> > > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do that,
> > > then
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> > > developers
> > > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
> > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > > >>>> straight
> > > > > > >>>> > in
> > > > > > >>>> > > the
> > > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite
> Spring
> > > > Boot
> > > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> > > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I
> > would
> > > > > > rework
> > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking
> our
> > > > Spring
> > > > > > >>>> Boot
> > > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
> > > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > >
> > >
> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > already
> > > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename
> > "configuration"
> > > > to
> > > > > > >>>> "config",
> > > > > > >>>> > > and
> > > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass the
> > > > > > >>>> transactional
> > > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format below:
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > > > > >>>> > > name:
> > > > > > >>>> > > config:
> > > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > -
> > > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get
> wrapped
> > > > into a
> > > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the
> relevant
> > > > > sections
> > > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > > >>>> > code
> > > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the
> methods
> > > > that
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > >>>> > called
> > > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully
> this
> > > > helps.
> > > > > > >>>> The key
> > > > > > >>>> > is
> > > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can
> > be
> > > > > > changed
> > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > > >>>> > > there
> > > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default it
> uses
> > > > this
> > > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/
> > > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > >>>> > > .
> > > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how
> this
> > > > could
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the
> > > value
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > > >>>> > > present
> > > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null
> > > else
> > > > it
> > > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code
> > because I
> > > > use
> > > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and
> > > write
> > > > > some
> > > > > > >>>> > > additional
> > > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the
> > key.
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using
> > @CachePut,
> > > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I
> was
> > > > > trying
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would be
> the
> > > > > > underlying
> > > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those operations
> > are
> > > > > > >>>> performed?
> > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below method
> then
> > > how
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> result
> > > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this
> > would
> > > > > need
> > > > > > >>>> to be
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into multiple
> > > > modules.
> > > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have
> > > > > ignite-data
> > > > > > >>>> but
> > > > > > >>>> > that
> > > > > > >>>> > > > will
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but
> the
> > > > basic
> > > > > > >>>> config is
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API described
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> wiki and
> > > > > > >>>> > > make
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment
> I'm
> > > > > missing
> > > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that
> would
> > > fit
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but
> I'm
> > > sure
> > > > > > >>>> something
> > > > > > >>>> > > > could
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module
> > that
> > > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this module
> > also
> > > > > has a
> > > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are
> > the
> > > > two
> > > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > > > > >>>> > > > that
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to
> > define
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and
> > > > SyncCache
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > >>>> they
> > > > > > >>>> > > also
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the
> name
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> instance
> > > > > > >>>> > > to
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the
> > > > documentation
> > > > > I
> > > > > > >>>> believe
> > > > > > >>>> > > for
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and
> > > > Hazelcast
> > > > > > >>>> > implements
> > > > > > >>>> > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml
> > > > > > >>>> configuration in
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache
> names
> > > are
> > > > > > >>>> provided
> > > > > > >>>> > > along
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > with
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be
> setup
> > > > > where a
> > > > > > >>>> list
> > > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a
> > > > > > >>>> configuration if
> > > > > > >>>> > > that
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/
> > > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > > >>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any
> > > > questions
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >>>> > > respect
> > > > > > >>>> > > > to
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration and
> > wanted
> > > to
> > > > > ask
> > > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > > >>>> > these
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for the
> > > > > > >>>> micronaut-ignite
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > integration.
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable
> > within
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> given
> > > > > > >>>> > cache
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > name
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a
> > > > method
> > > > > > >>>> > invocation
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > should
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original
> > operation
> > > is
> > > > > > never
> > > > > > >>>> > > skipped.
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a
> > > > method
> > > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > > >>>> > > cause
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev
> > > list,
> > > > > it
> > > > > > >>>> great
> > > > > > >>>> > to
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > learn
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael
> Pollind <
> > > > > > >>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the
> > details
> > > > over
> > > > > > >>>> the next
> > > > > > >>>> > > few
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > days
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > >>>> dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in
> > the
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >>>> > > namespace.
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by
> sending
> > a
> > > > note
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address.
> > > > Otherwise,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > >>>> need
> > > > > > >>>> > to
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > approve
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael
> > Pollind
> > > <
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action
> ?
> > > > > username=mpollind
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request
> > that
> > > > I've
> > > > > > put
> > > > > > >>>> > > > together:
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Michael,
Finally, I figured out Micronaut configuration specificities. What confused
me before, is that even though the beans configuration in Micronaut looks
quite similar to the Spring Boot approach, the former automates a lot with
the help of reflection in runtime. That's how our default Spring Boot
configuration looks
<https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/blob/master/modules/spring-boot-thin-client-autoconfigure-ext/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/springframework/boot/autoconfigure/IgniteClientConfigurer.java>
like. And that's enough to let the users define any possible property of an
IgniteConfiguration instance as per this example
<https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration>.
The upside of the reflection.
Anyway, let's go back to our world. That's what I would suggest.
*Ignite Thin Client*
- Let's create DefaultThinClientConfiguration that *extends* Ignite's
ClientConfiguration
<https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/ClientConfiguration.java>.
Once done, it will be possible to configure most of ClientConfiguration
settings which are primitive types. (guess that's how you were doing that
before I joined the review)
- Some fields of the ClientConfiguration class are of custom
non-primitive types and should be added into the
DefaultThinClientConfiguration explicitly via the @ConfigurationBuilder
annotation. Those fields are *sslType, sslProtocol,
sslCtxFactory, txCfg*.
Apart from the DefaultThinClientConfiguration, can we support another
configuration approach when a ClientConfiguration bean is created
programmatically in the source code and the integration uses that bean to
initialize an instance of the thin client (instead of
using DefaultThinClientConfiguration that requires to set the properties
via YAML,etc.). For instance, that's how the ClientConfiguration bean is
created programmatically in Spring Boot
<https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-programmatically>and
our integration uses it to initialize an Ignite object.
*Ignite Node (server or thick client)*
Obviously, this one is trickier due to the numerous configuration
parameters of the IgniteConfiguration class
<https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/IgniteConfiguration.java>
.
So, as you suggested before, we need to select the most frequently used
configuration parameters and add them to the DefaultIgniteConfiguration
with @ConfigurationBuilder annotation. However, it seems reasonable if
DefaultIgniteConfiguration will extend Ignite's IgniteConfiguration (so
that we don't need to list parameters of primitive types). Based on my
experience, I would add the following settings of custom non-primitive
types:
- TcpDiscoverySpi
<https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/TcpDiscoverySpi.java>
with
all its fields of primitive types (this should be done easily, right,
without copy-paste?) and its ipFinder field. In the beginning, I would only
support setting TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder
<https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/vm/TcpDiscoveryVmIpFinder.java>
and
KubernetesIpFinder
<https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/kubernetes/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/discovery/tcp/ipfinder/kubernetes/TcpDiscoveryKubernetesIpFinder.java>via
the DefaultIgniteConfiguration.
- DataStorageConfiguration
<https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/DataStorageConfiguration.java>
including
its DataStorageConfiguration.dataRegions property.
- TcpCommunicationSpi
<https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/f4b30f7f1e736845ffa8eaf2d8aa171700a928eb/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/spi/communication/tcp/TcpCommunicationSpi.java>
with
its fields of primitive types. Again, here is I'm assuming that we can do
this avoiding copy-pasting. Either through @ConfigurationBuilder (include)
or inheritence.
If the user wants to configure any settings unsupported by
DefaultIgniteConfiguration then, there should be a way to create an
IgniteConfiguration bean programmatically and use it to initialize an
Ignite instance (instead of DefaultIgniteConfiguration).
What's your thinking? Let me know if I'm still missing something.
-
Denis
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:49 PM Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Michael, Denis
>
> I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network options for
> Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something similar to
> configure CommunicationSpi
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#ehcache
> [2]
>
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Regards,
> Saikat
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation. You can ask
> > questions in the micronaut gitter:
> > https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> > . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for EachProperty
> > and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the current existing
> > micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are setup. There
> > is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been pretty
> > helpful in the past in working out how some of these annotations work in
> > practice.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael,
> > >
> > > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite instances
> > is
> > > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a single
> instance
> > > only.
> > >
> > > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration matters of
> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could you
> > recommend
> > > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration specifies
> > > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the communicationSpi,
> so
> > > you
> > > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much like the
> > > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just allowing a
> > > single
> > > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot configuration:
> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the default use
> > case
> > > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as follows:
> > > >
> > > > ignite:
> > > > enable true
> > > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > > > communication-spi:
> > > > local-port: 5555
> > > > data-storage-configuration:
> > > > ...
> > > > cache-configurations:
> > > > - name: accounts
> > > > queryEntities:
> > > > - tableName: NAME
> > > > ...
> > > > - ...
> > > > ignite-thin:
> > > > enable: false
> > > > instance-name: name
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of something
> that
> > > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Michael,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by
> > > default
> > > > so
> > > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the
> > > default
> > > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is
> > > > present.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we shouldn't
> bother
> > > > about
> > > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I said
> before,
> > > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is designed
> for
> > > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly think of a
> > use
> > > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot up several
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite instance
> > per
> > > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will
> significantly
> > > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If anybody
> > needs
> > > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them manually.
> > > > >
> > > > > By default the
> > > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache
> if
> > > that
> > > > > > would be ok?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply disallow
> > > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a thick or
> > thin
> > > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already started, then
> > throw
> > > an
> > > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and vice
> versa).
> > > As
> > > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut, I would
> > > > recommend
> > > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a serverless
> > function
> > > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while for
> > > > micro-services
> > > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was
> mainly
> > > for
> > > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about Micronaut.
> Let
> > me
> > > > > double-check the following with you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Assume these are the only fields of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > > > >
> > > > > private final String name;
> > > > >
> > > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below without
> > having
> > > > it
> > > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you getting a
> > > > > NullPointerException?
> > > > >
> > > > > ignite:
> > > > > name: some_name
> > > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > > > communicationSpi:
> > > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> > > > > -
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together along
> with
> > > some
> > > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little
> complicated
> > > > but I
> > > > > > think it's doable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was
> > > mainly
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant.
> > Will
> > > > > have
> > > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might get a
> little
> > > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> > > > > >>
> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass that to
> > > > somewhere
> > > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> private final String name;
> > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> > > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
> > > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is declared. I
> > > think
> > > > > we
> > > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If i'm not
> > > > mistaken
> > > > > for
> > > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the name
> > since
> > > > > that is
> > > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under EachProperty.
> > The
> > > > > name is
> > > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the same
> > > > > qualifier for
> > > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the
> primary
> > > bean
> > > > > for
> > > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance active
> > at a
> > > > > time.
> > > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by
> > > > default
> > > > > so
> > > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the
> > > > default
> > > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration
> is
> > > > > present.
> > > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use one
> > instance
> > > of
> > > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again. By
> > default
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache
> > if
> > > > that
> > > > > >>> would be ok?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> ignite:
> > > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > > >>> ...
> > > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > > >>> ....
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
> instances.
> > > > This
> > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick or
> thin
> > > > > client
> > > > > >>>> per
> > > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can utilize
> all
> > > the
> > > > > CPUs
> > > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the ability to
> > > > > configure
> > > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I understand,
> > Micronaut
> > > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > > > property,
> > > > > >>>> right?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By
> looking
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > > > >>>> >,
> > > > > >>>> that defines
> org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> property
> > > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that Micronaut
> could
> > > > > >>>> introspect
> > > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared these
> > > > > properties
> > > > > >>>> table
> > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> >.
> > > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin
> client
> > > in a
> > > > > >>>> YAML
> > > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
> > ClientConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some settings such
> > as
> > > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this sound
> > > accurate
> > > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just swap the
> > > > "path"
> > > > > >>>> that
> > > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is IgniteConfiguration.
> > Then
> > > > let
> > > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and
> allow a
> > > > > >>>> developer
> > > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder or
> > memory
> > > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find IgniteConfiguration
> > defaults
> > > > > here
> > > > > >>>> <
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> .
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> -
> > > > > >>>> Denis
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple
> instances.
> > > > This
> > > > > >>>> is what
> > > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was
> > originally
> > > > > >>>> trying to
> > > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite instance
> but
> > > > found
> > > > > I
> > > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what defaults
> > are
> > > > set
> > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't be
> > > covered
> > > > > >>>> with how
> > > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations. @ConfigurationProperty can
> > > only
> > > > be
> > > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have multiple
> > > > > factories
> > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming. In
> > this
> > > > > >>>> situation
> > > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal in this
> > > > > >>>> situation when
> > > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be able to
> > > cover
> > > > > >>>> enough
> > > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default:
> > address:
> > > > > -
> > > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
> > 127.0.0.1:10801
> > > "
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
> > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and the
> > > > current
> > > > > >>>> > version
> > > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > >
> > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > class,
> > > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
> > > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> (or, to
> > > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration as
> > it's
> > > > > done
> > > > > >>>> for
> > > > > >>>> > the
> > > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > > > >>>> > > >).
> > > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the developers
> > might
> > > > need
> > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to the
> Ignite
> > > > > clients
> > > > > >>>> > only.
> > > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > > > >>>> > >
> io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I
> would
> > > > > replace
> > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
> > > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do that,
> > then
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>> > > developers
> > > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
> > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> straight
> > > > > >>>> > in
> > > > > >>>> > > the
> > > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite Spring
> > > Boot
> > > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> > > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I
> would
> > > > > rework
> > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking our
> > > Spring
> > > > > >>>> Boot
> > > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
> > > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > > >
> > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > already
> > > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename
> "configuration"
> > > to
> > > > > >>>> "config",
> > > > > >>>> > > and
> > > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass the
> > > > > >>>> transactional
> > > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format below:
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > > > >>>> > > name:
> > > > > >>>> > > config:
> > > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > -
> > > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get wrapped
> > > into a
> > > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the relevant
> > > > sections
> > > > > >>>> of
> > > > > >>>> > code
> > > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the methods
> > > that
> > > > > get
> > > > > >>>> > called
> > > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully this
> > > helps.
> > > > > >>>> The key
> > > > > >>>> > is
> > > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can
> be
> > > > > changed
> > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > >>>> > > there
> > > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default it uses
> > > this
> > > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/
> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > >>>> > > .
> > > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how this
> > > could
> > > > > be
> > > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the
> > value
> > > > is
> > > > > >>>> not
> > > > > >>>> > > present
> > > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null
> > else
> > > it
> > > > > >>>> will
> > > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code
> because I
> > > use
> > > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and
> > write
> > > > some
> > > > > >>>> > > additional
> > > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the
> key.
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using
> @CachePut,
> > > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was
> > > > trying
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would be the
> > > > > underlying
> > > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those operations
> are
> > > > > >>>> performed?
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below method then
> > how
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>> result
> > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > > > >>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
> > > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this
> would
> > > > need
> > > > > >>>> to be
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into multiple
> > > modules.
> > > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have
> > > > ignite-data
> > > > > >>>> but
> > > > > >>>> > that
> > > > > >>>> > > > will
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but the
> > > basic
> > > > > >>>> config is
> > > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API described
> in
> > > the
> > > > > >>>> wiki and
> > > > > >>>> > > make
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm
> > > > missing
> > > > > >>>> an
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that would
> > fit
> > > > > into
> > > > > >>>> this
> > > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm
> > sure
> > > > > >>>> something
> > > > > >>>> > > > could
> > > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module
> that
> > > can
> > > > be
> > > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this module
> also
> > > > has a
> > > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are
> the
> > > two
> > > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > > > >>>> > > > that
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to
> define
> > > the
> > > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and
> > > SyncCache
> > > > > but
> > > > > >>>> they
> > > > > >>>> > > also
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name
> of
> > > the
> > > > > >>>> instance
> > > > > >>>> > > to
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the
> > > documentation
> > > > I
> > > > > >>>> believe
> > > > > >>>> > > for
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and
> > > Hazelcast
> > > > > >>>> > implements
> > > > > >>>> > > > the
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml
> > > > > >>>> configuration in
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache names
> > are
> > > > > >>>> provided
> > > > > >>>> > > along
> > > > > >>>> > > > > with
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be setup
> > > > where a
> > > > > >>>> list
> > > > > >>>> > of
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a
> > > > > >>>> configuration if
> > > > > >>>> > > that
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/
> > > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > > >>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any
> > > questions
> > > > > with
> > > > > >>>> > > respect
> > > > > >>>> > > > to
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration and
> wanted
> > to
> > > > ask
> > > > > >>>> if
> > > > > >>>> > these
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for the
> > > > > >>>> micronaut-ignite
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > integration.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable
> within
> > > the
> > > > > >>>> given
> > > > > >>>> > cache
> > > > > >>>> > > > > name
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a
> > > method
> > > > > >>>> > invocation
> > > > > >>>> > > > > should
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original
> operation
> > is
> > > > > never
> > > > > >>>> > > skipped.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a
> > > method
> > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > >>>> > > cause
> > > > > >>>> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev
> > list,
> > > > it
> > > > > >>>> great
> > > > > >>>> > to
> > > > > >>>> > > > > learn
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > Saikat
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > >>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the
> details
> > > over
> > > > > >>>> the next
> > > > > >>>> > > few
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > days
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > >>>> dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in
> the
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > >>>> > > namespace.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending
> a
> > > note
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address.
> > > Otherwise,
> > > > > we
> > > > > >>>> need
> > > > > >>>> > to
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > approve
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael
> Pollind
> > <
> > > > > >>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?
> > > > username=mpollind
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request
> that
> > > I've
> > > > > put
> > > > > >>>> > > > together:
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
> > > > > >>>> > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > > >>>> > >
> > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Michael, Denis
I was looking into tiering options for ehcache[1] and network options for
Hazelcast[2] and I am thinking we can implement something similar to
configure CommunicationSpi
[1]
https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#ehcache
[2]
https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-cache/snapshot/guide/#hazelcast
Let me know what you think.
Regards,
Saikat
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:09 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation. You can ask
> questions in the micronaut gitter:
> https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
> . Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for EachProperty
> and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the current existing
> micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are setup. There
> is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been pretty
> helpful in the past in working out how some of these annotations work in
> practice.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Michael,
> >
> > Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite instances
> is
> > settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a single instance
> > only.
> >
> > Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration matters of
> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could you
> recommend
> > any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration specifies
> > (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
> >
> > Denis
> >
> > On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the communicationSpi, so
> > you
> > > need to define it separately as follows:
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much like the
> > > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just allowing a
> > single
> > > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot configuration:
> > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the default use
> case
> > > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as follows:
> > >
> > > ignite:
> > > enable true
> > > ignite-instance-name: name
> > > communication-spi:
> > > local-port: 5555
> > > data-storage-configuration:
> > > ...
> > > cache-configurations:
> > > - name: accounts
> > > queryEntities:
> > > - tableName: NAME
> > > ...
> > > - ...
> > > ignite-thin:
> > > enable: false
> > > instance-name: name
> > >
> > >
> > > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of something that
> > > should suffice for this usecase:
> > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by
> > default
> > > so
> > > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the
> > default
> > > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is
> > > present.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we shouldn't bother
> > > about
> > > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I said before,
> > > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is designed for
> > > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly think of a
> use
> > > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot up several
> > > Ignite
> > > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite instance
> per
> > > > application process? What's your view on this? It will significantly
> > > > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If anybody
> needs
> > > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them manually.
> > > >
> > > > By default the
> > > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache if
> > that
> > > > > would be ok?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply disallow
> > > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a thick or
> thin
> > > > client). For example, if a thick client is already started, then
> throw
> > an
> > > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and vice versa).
> > As
> > > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut, I would
> > > recommend
> > > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a serverless
> function
> > > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while for
> > > micro-services
> > > > you can use both types of clients.
> > > >
> > > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was mainly
> > for
> > > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about Micronaut. Let
> me
> > > > double-check the following with you.
> > > >
> > > > Assume these are the only fields of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > > >
> > > > private final String name;
> > > >
> > > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below without
> having
> > > it
> > > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you getting a
> > > > NullPointerException?
> > > >
> > > > ignite:
> > > > name: some_name
> > > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > > communicationSpi:
> > > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> > > > -
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <mpollind@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together along with
> > some
> > > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little complicated
> > > but I
> > > > > think it's doable.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was
> > mainly
> > > > for
> > > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant.
> Will
> > > > have
> > > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might get a little
> > > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> > > > >>
> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass that to
> > > somewhere
> > > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> private final String name;
> > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> > > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
> > > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is declared. I
> > think
> > > > we
> > > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If i'm not
> > > mistaken
> > > > for
> > > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the name
> since
> > > > that is
> > > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under EachProperty.
> The
> > > > name is
> > > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the same
> > > > qualifier for
> > > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the primary
> > bean
> > > > for
> > > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance active
> at a
> > > > time.
> > > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by
> > > default
> > > > so
> > > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the
> > > default
> > > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is
> > > > present.
> > > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use one
> instance
> > of
> > > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again. By
> default
> > > the
> > > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache
> if
> > > that
> > > > >>> would be ok?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ignite:
> > > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > >>> ...
> > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > >>> ...
> > > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > > >>> ...
> > > > >>> second-bean:
> > > > >>> ....
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances.
> > > This
> > > > >>>> is what
> > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick or thin
> > > > client
> > > > >>>> per
> > > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can utilize all
> > the
> > > > CPUs
> > > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the ability to
> > > > configure
> > > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I understand,
> Micronaut
> > > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > > property,
> > > > >>>> right?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By looking
> at
> > > the
> > > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > >>>> <
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > > >>>> >,
> > > > >>>> that defines org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > > >>>> property
> > > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that Micronaut could
> > > > >>>> introspect
> > > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared these
> > > > properties
> > > > >>>> table
> > > > >>>> <
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > >>>> >.
> > > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin client
> > in a
> > > > >>>> YAML
> > > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the
> ClientConfiguration
> > > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some settings such
> as
> > > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this sound
> > accurate
> > > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just swap the
> > > "path"
> > > > >>>> that
> > > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is IgniteConfiguration.
> Then
> > > let
> > > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and allow a
> > > > >>>> developer
> > > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder or
> memory
> > > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find IgniteConfiguration
> defaults
> > > > here
> > > > >>>> <
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>> .
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> -
> > > > >>>> Denis
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances.
> > > This
> > > > >>>> is what
> > > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was
> originally
> > > > >>>> trying to
> > > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite instance but
> > > found
> > > > I
> > > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what defaults
> are
> > > set
> > > > >>>> for
> > > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't be
> > covered
> > > > >>>> with how
> > > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations. @ConfigurationProperty can
> > only
> > > be
> > > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have multiple
> > > > factories
> > > > >>>> and
> > > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming. In
> this
> > > > >>>> situation
> > > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal in this
> > > > >>>> situation when
> > > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be able to
> > cover
> > > > >>>> enough
> > > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default:
> address:
> > > > -
> > > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "
> 127.0.0.1:10801
> > "
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
> > > > >>>> >
> > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and the
> > > current
> > > > >>>> > version
> > > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > >
> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > class,
> > > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
> > > IgniteConfiguration
> > > > >>>> (or, to
> > > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration as
> it's
> > > > done
> > > > >>>> for
> > > > >>>> > the
> > > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > > >>>> > > >).
> > > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the developers
> might
> > > need
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to the Ignite
> > > > clients
> > > > >>>> > only.
> > > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > > >>>> > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I would
> > > > replace
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
> > > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do that,
> then
> > > the
> > > > >>>> > > developers
> > > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the
> IgniteConfiguration
> > > > >>>> straight
> > > > >>>> > in
> > > > >>>> > > the
> > > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite Spring
> > Boot
> > > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > >>>> > > >.
> > > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> > > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I would
> > > > rework
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking our
> > Spring
> > > > >>>> Boot
> > > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
> > > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > > >>>> > > <
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > >
> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > already
> > > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename "configuration"
> > to
> > > > >>>> "config",
> > > > >>>> > > and
> > > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass the
> > > > >>>> transactional
> > > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format below:
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > > >>>> > > name:
> > > > >>>> > > config:
> > > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> > > -
> > > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get wrapped
> > into a
> > > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the relevant
> > > sections
> > > > >>>> of
> > > > >>>> > code
> > > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the methods
> > that
> > > > get
> > > > >>>> > called
> > > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully this
> > helps.
> > > > >>>> The key
> > > > >>>> > is
> > > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can be
> > > > changed
> > > > >>>> if
> > > > >>>> > > there
> > > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default it uses
> > this
> > > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/
> > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > >>>> > > .
> > > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how this
> > could
> > > > be
> > > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the
> value
> > > is
> > > > >>>> not
> > > > >>>> > > present
> > > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null
> else
> > it
> > > > >>>> will
> > > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code because I
> > use
> > > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and
> write
> > > some
> > > > >>>> > > additional
> > > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the key.
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using @CachePut,
> > > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was
> > > trying
> > > > to
> > > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would be the
> > > > underlying
> > > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those operations are
> > > > >>>> performed?
> > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below method then
> how
> > > the
> > > > >>>> result
> > > > >>>> > of
> > > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > > >>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
> > > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this would
> > > need
> > > > >>>> to be
> > > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into multiple
> > modules.
> > > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have
> > > ignite-data
> > > > >>>> but
> > > > >>>> > that
> > > > >>>> > > > will
> > > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but the
> > basic
> > > > >>>> config is
> > > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API described in
> > the
> > > > >>>> wiki and
> > > > >>>> > > make
> > > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm
> > > missing
> > > > >>>> an
> > > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that would
> fit
> > > > into
> > > > >>>> this
> > > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm
> sure
> > > > >>>> something
> > > > >>>> > > > could
> > > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module that
> > can
> > > be
> > > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this module also
> > > has a
> > > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are the
> > two
> > > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > > >>>> > > > that
> > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to define
> > the
> > > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and
> > SyncCache
> > > > but
> > > > >>>> they
> > > > >>>> > > also
> > > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name of
> > the
> > > > >>>> instance
> > > > >>>> > > to
> > > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the
> > documentation
> > > I
> > > > >>>> believe
> > > > >>>> > > for
> > > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and
> > Hazelcast
> > > > >>>> > implements
> > > > >>>> > > > the
> > > > >>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml
> > > > >>>> configuration in
> > > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache names
> are
> > > > >>>> provided
> > > > >>>> > > along
> > > > >>>> > > > > with
> > > > >>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be setup
> > > where a
> > > > >>>> list
> > > > >>>> > of
> > > > >>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a
> > > > >>>> configuration if
> > > > >>>> > > that
> > > > >>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
> > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/
> > > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
> > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > > >>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any
> > questions
> > > > with
> > > > >>>> > > respect
> > > > >>>> > > > to
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
> > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration and wanted
> to
> > > ask
> > > > >>>> if
> > > > >>>> > these
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for the
> > > > >>>> micronaut-ignite
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > integration.
> > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within
> > the
> > > > >>>> given
> > > > >>>> > cache
> > > > >>>> > > > > name
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a
> > method
> > > > >>>> > invocation
> > > > >>>> > > > > should
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation
> is
> > > > never
> > > > >>>> > > skipped.
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a
> > method
> > > > >>>> should
> > > > >>>> > > cause
> > > > >>>> > > > > the
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
> > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev
> list,
> > > it
> > > > >>>> great
> > > > >>>> > to
> > > > >>>> > > > > learn
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
> > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > Saikat
> > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > > >>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the details
> > over
> > > > >>>> the next
> > > > >>>> > > few
> > > > >>>> > > > > > days
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > >>>> dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the
> > > Ignite
> > > > >>>> > > namespace.
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a
> > note
> > > > to
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address.
> > Otherwise,
> > > > we
> > > > >>>> need
> > > > >>>> > to
> > > > >>>> > > > > > approve
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind
> <
> > > > >>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?
> > > username=mpollind
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request that
> > I've
> > > > put
> > > > >>>> > > > together:
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >>>> > >
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
> > > > >>>> > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > > >
> > > > >>>> > > >
> > > > >>>> > >
> > > > >>>> >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -
> > Denis
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
A lot of this was just figured out through experimentation. You can ask
questions in the micronaut gitter: https://gitter.im/micronautfw/questions
. Micronaut documentation is pretty comprehensive:
https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/guide/index.html. look for EachProperty
and ConfigurationProperty. you can also hunt through the current existing
micronaut modules and find how those configuration items are setup. There
is also the unit test cases in micronaut-core which have been pretty
helpful in the past in working out how some of these annotations work in
practice.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:50 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite instances is
> settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a single instance
> only.
>
> Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration matters of
> DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could you recommend
> any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration specifies
> (through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
>
> Denis
>
> On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the communicationSpi, so
> you
> > need to define it separately as follows:
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> > With this setup the configuration should look pretty much like the
> > spring-boot sample you showed me:
> > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> > I agree it should make the configuration easier with just allowing a
> single
> > instance and it matches up well with spring-boot configuration:
> > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > context/annotation/Requires.html.
> > Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the default use case
> > seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as follows:
> >
> > ignite:
> > enable true
> > ignite-instance-name: name
> > communication-spi:
> > local-port: 5555
> > data-storage-configuration:
> > ...
> > cache-configurations:
> > - name: accounts
> > queryEntities:
> > - tableName: NAME
> > ...
> > - ...
> > ignite-thin:
> > enable: false
> > instance-name: name
> >
> >
> > Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of something that
> > should suffice for this usecase:
> > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > context/annotation/Requires.html
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael,
> > >
> > >
> > > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by
> default
> > so
> > > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the
> default
> > > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is
> > present.
> > >
> > >
> > > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we shouldn't bother
> > about
> > > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I said before,
> > > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is designed for
> > > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly think of a use
> > > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot up several
> > Ignite
> > > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite instance per
> > > application process? What's your view on this? It will significantly
> > > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If anybody needs
> > > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them manually.
> > >
> > > By default the
> > > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache if
> that
> > > > would be ok?
> > >
> > >
> > > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply disallow
> > > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a thick or thin
> > > client). For example, if a thick client is already started, then throw
> an
> > > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and vice versa).
> As
> > > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut, I would
> > recommend
> > > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a serverless function
> > > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while for
> > micro-services
> > > you can use both types of clients.
> > >
> > > The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was mainly
> for
> > > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about Micronaut. Let me
> > > double-check the following with you.
> > >
> > > Assume these are the only fields of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> > >
> > > private final String name;
> > >
> > > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > >
> > >
> > > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below without having
> > it
> > > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you getting a
> > > NullPointerException?
> > >
> > > ignite:
> > > name: some_name
> > > igniteConfiguration:
> > > communicationSpi:
> > > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together along with
> some
> > > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little complicated
> > but I
> > > > think it's doable.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > > along with some relevant test:
> > > >
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <mpollind@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was
> mainly
> > > for
> > > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant. Will
> > > have
> > > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might get a little
> > > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> > > >>
> > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> > convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > > >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass that to
> > somewhere
> > > >> else to be manage it.
> > > >>
> > > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
> > > >>
> > > >> private final String name;
> > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > > IgniteConfiguration();
> > > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> > > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
> > > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > > >>
> > > >> [image: image.png]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is declared. I
> think
> > > we
> > > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If i'm not
> > mistaken
> > > for
> > > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the name since
> > > that is
> > > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under EachProperty. The
> > > name is
> > > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the same
> > > qualifier for
> > > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the primary
> bean
> > > for
> > > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance active at a
> > > time.
> > > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by
> > default
> > > so
> > > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the
> > default
> > > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is
> > > present.
> > > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use one instance
> of
> > > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again. By default
> > the
> > > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache if
> > that
> > > >>> would be ok?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ignite:
> > > >>> thick-clients:
> > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > >>> ...
> > > >>> second-bean:
> > > >>> ...
> > > >>> thin-clients:
> > > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > > >>> ...
> > > >>> second-bean:
> > > >>> ....
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> > context/annotation/Requires.html
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances.
> > This
> > > >>>> is what
> > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick or thin
> > > client
> > > >>>> per
> > > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can utilize all
> the
> > > CPUs
> > > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the ability to
> > > configure
> > > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I understand, Micronaut
> > > >>>> distinguishes clients per the "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > > property,
> > > >>>> right?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By looking at
> > the
> > > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > >>>> <
> > > >>>>
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > > >>>> >,
> > > >>>> that defines org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > > >>>> property
> > > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that Micronaut could
> > > >>>> introspect
> > > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared these
> > > properties
> > > >>>> table
> > > >>>> <
> > > >>>>
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> > snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > >>>> >.
> > > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin client
> in a
> > > >>>> YAML
> > > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the ClientConfiguration
> > > >>>> (Ignite
> > > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some settings such as
> > > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this sound
> accurate
> > > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just swap the
> > "path"
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is IgniteConfiguration. Then
> > let
> > > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and allow a
> > > >>>> developer
> > > >>>> to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder or memory
> > > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find IgniteConfiguration defaults
> > > here
> > > >>>> <
> > > >>>>
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> > IgniteConfiguration.java
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> .
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -
> > > >>>> Denis
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances.
> > This
> > > >>>> is what
> > > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was originally
> > > >>>> trying to
> > > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite instance but
> > found
> > > I
> > > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what defaults are
> > set
> > > >>>> for
> > > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't be
> covered
> > > >>>> with how
> > > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations. @ConfigurationProperty can
> only
> > be
> > > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have multiple
> > > factories
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming. In this
> > > >>>> situation
> > > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal in this
> > > >>>> situation when
> > > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be able to
> cover
> > > >>>> enough
> > > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default: address:
> > > -
> > > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801
> "
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
> > > >>>> >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and the
> > current
> > > >>>> > version
> > > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> > IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > >>>> > > <
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > class,
> > > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
> > IgniteConfiguration
> > > >>>> (or, to
> > > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration as it's
> > > done
> > > >>>> for
> > > >>>> > the
> > > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > > >>>> > > <
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> > latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> > DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > >>>> > > >).
> > > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the developers might
> > need
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > > >>>> > > <
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> > deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > >>>> > > >.
> > > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to the Ignite
> > > clients
> > > >>>> > only.
> > > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > > >>>> > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I would
> > > replace
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>> > > "path"
> > > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
> > > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do that, then
> > the
> > > >>>> > > developers
> > > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the IgniteConfiguration
> > > >>>> straight
> > > >>>> > in
> > > >>>> > > the
> > > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite Spring
> Boot
> > > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > >>>> > > <
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > >>>> > > >.
> > > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> > > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I would
> > > rework
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking our
> Spring
> > > >>>> Boot
> > > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > > >>>> > > <
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> > set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
> > > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > >>>> > > <
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> > blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> > IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > already
> > > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename "configuration"
> to
> > > >>>> "config",
> > > >>>> > > and
> > > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass the
> > > >>>> transactional
> > > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format below:
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > >>>> > > name:
> > > >>>> > > config:
> > > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> > > -
> > > >>>> > > Denis
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>> > > wrote:
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get wrapped
> into a
> > > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the relevant
> > sections
> > > >>>> of
> > > >>>> > code
> > > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the methods
> that
> > > get
> > > >>>> > called
> > > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully this
> helps.
> > > >>>> The key
> > > >>>> > is
> > > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can be
> > > changed
> > > >>>> if
> > > >>>> > > there
> > > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default it uses
> this
> > > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/
> > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > >>>> > > > ).
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > >>>> > > .
> > > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how this
> could
> > > be
> > > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the value
> > is
> > > >>>> not
> > > >>>> > > present
> > > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > >>>> > > > get:
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null else
> it
> > > >>>> will
> > > >>>> > > issue a
> > > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code because I
> use
> > > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and write
> > some
> > > >>>> > > additional
> > > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > >>>> > > > put:
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the key.
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> > master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> > interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> > IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using @CachePut,
> > > >>>> @Cacheable
> > > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was
> > trying
> > > to
> > > >>>> > > > understand
> > > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would be the
> > > underlying
> > > >>>> > Ignite
> > > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those operations are
> > > >>>> performed?
> > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below method then how
> > the
> > > >>>> result
> > > >>>> > of
> > > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > >>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
> > > >>>> > > > > }
> > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this would
> > need
> > > >>>> to be
> > > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into multiple
> modules.
> > > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have
> > ignite-data
> > > >>>> but
> > > >>>> > that
> > > >>>> > > > will
> > > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but the
> basic
> > > >>>> config is
> > > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API described in
> the
> > > >>>> wiki and
> > > >>>> > > make
> > > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm
> > missing
> > > >>>> an
> > > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that would fit
> > > into
> > > >>>> this
> > > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm sure
> > > >>>> something
> > > >>>> > > > could
> > > >>>> > > > > be
> > > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module that
> can
> > be
> > > >>>> > > optionally
> > > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this module also
> > has a
> > > >>>> > > dependency
> > > >>>> > > > > on
> > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are the
> two
> > > >>>> > interfaces
> > > >>>> > > > that
> > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to define
> the
> > > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and
> SyncCache
> > > but
> > > >>>> they
> > > >>>> > > also
> > > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name of
> the
> > > >>>> instance
> > > >>>> > > to
> > > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the
> documentation
> > I
> > > >>>> believe
> > > >>>> > > for
> > > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and
> Hazelcast
> > > >>>> > implements
> > > >>>> > > > the
> > > >>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml
> > > >>>> configuration in
> > > >>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache names are
> > > >>>> provided
> > > >>>> > > along
> > > >>>> > > > > with
> > > >>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be setup
> > where a
> > > >>>> list
> > > >>>> > of
> > > >>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a
> > > >>>> configuration if
> > > >>>> > > that
> > > >>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
> > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/
> > rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
> > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > >>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any
> questions
> > > with
> > > >>>> > > respect
> > > >>>> > > > to
> > > >>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
> > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration and wanted to
> > ask
> > > >>>> if
> > > >>>> > these
> > > >>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for the
> > > >>>> micronaut-ignite
> > > >>>> > > > > > > integration.
> > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within
> the
> > > >>>> given
> > > >>>> > cache
> > > >>>> > > > > name
> > > >>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a
> method
> > > >>>> > invocation
> > > >>>> > > > > should
> > > >>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation is
> > > never
> > > >>>> > > skipped.
> > > >>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a
> method
> > > >>>> should
> > > >>>> > > cause
> > > >>>> > > > > the
> > > >>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
> > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev list,
> > it
> > > >>>> great
> > > >>>> > to
> > > >>>> > > > > learn
> > > >>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
> > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > >>>> > > > > > > Saikat
> > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > >>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the details
> over
> > > >>>> the next
> > > >>>> > > few
> > > >>>> > > > > > days
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
> > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <
> > > >>>> dmagda@apache.org
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the
> > Ignite
> > > >>>> > > namespace.
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a
> note
> > > to
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address.
> Otherwise,
> > > we
> > > >>>> need
> > > >>>> > to
> > > >>>> > > > > > approve
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > > -
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > >>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?
> > username=mpollind
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request that
> I've
> > > put
> > > >>>> > > > together:
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > >>>> > >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
> > > >>>> > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > > >
> > > >>>> > > > >
> > > >>>> > > >
> > > >>>> > >
> > > >>>> >
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> -
> Denis
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Michael,
Alright, then the question on the possible quantity of Ignite instances is
settled - the integration will allow to auto-configure a single instance
only.
Give me a couple of days to look into the configuration matters of
DefaultIgniteConfiguration and see what I can suggest. Could you recommend
any materials (or sources) that on Micronaut configuration specifies
(through YAML and programmatically via source code)?
Denis
On Wednesday, August 19, 2020, Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the communicationSpi, so you
> need to define it separately as follows:
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
> With this setup the configuration should look pretty much like the
> spring-boot sample you showed me:
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
> I agree it should make the configuration easier with just allowing a single
> instance and it matches up well with spring-boot configuration:
> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> context/annotation/Requires.html.
> Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the default use case
> seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as follows:
>
> ignite:
> enable true
> ignite-instance-name: name
> communication-spi:
> local-port: 5555
> data-storage-configuration:
> ...
> cache-configurations:
> - name: accounts
> queryEntities:
> - tableName: NAME
> ...
> - ...
> ignite-thin:
> enable: false
> instance-name: name
>
>
> Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of something that
> should suffice for this usecase:
> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> context/annotation/Requires.html
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Michael,
> >
> >
> > > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by default
> so
> > > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the default
> > > bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is
> present.
> >
> >
> > The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we shouldn't bother
> about
> > the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I said before,
> > that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is designed for
> > micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly think of a use
> > case when a micro-service or function would need to boot up several
> Ignite
> > clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite instance per
> > application process? What's your view on this? It will significantly
> > simplify the design and implementation of integration. If anybody needs
> > several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them manually.
> >
> > By default the
> > > thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache if that
> > > would be ok?
> >
> >
> > If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply disallow
> > auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a thick or thin
> > client). For example, if a thick client is already started, then throw an
> > exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and vice versa). As
> > for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut, I would
> recommend
> > using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a serverless function
> > (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while for
> micro-services
> > you can use both types of clients.
> >
> > The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was mainly for
> > > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant.
> >
> >
> > Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about Micronaut. Let me
> > double-check the following with you.
> >
> > Assume these are the only fields of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
> >
> > private final String name;
> >
> > @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > IgniteConfiguration();
> >
> >
> > Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below without having
> it
> > as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you getting a
> > NullPointerException?
> >
> > ignite:
> > name: some_name
> > igniteConfiguration:
> > communicationSpi:
> > {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together along with some
> > > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little complicated
> but I
> > > think it's doable.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > > along with some relevant test:
> > >
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/
> IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was mainly
> > for
> > >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant. Will
> > have
> > >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might get a little
> > >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> > >>
> > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/
> convert/format/MapFormat.html
> > >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass that to
> somewhere
> > >> else to be manage it.
> > >>
> > >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
> > >>
> > >> private final String name;
> > >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> > >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> > IgniteConfiguration();
> > >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> > >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
> > TcpCommunicationSpi();
> > >>
> > >> [image: image.png]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is declared. I think
> > we
> > >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If i'm not
> mistaken
> > for
> > >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the name since
> > that is
> > >>> provided by the key for each configuration under EachProperty. The
> > name is
> > >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the same
> > qualifier for
> > >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the primary bean
> > for
> > >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance active at a
> > time.
> > >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by
> default
> > so
> > >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the
> default
> > >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is
> > present.
> > >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use one instance of
> > >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again. By default
> the
> > >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache if
> that
> > >>> would be ok?
> > >>>
> > >>> ignite:
> > >>> thick-clients:
> > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > >>> ...
> > >>> second-bean:
> > >>> ...
> > >>> thin-clients:
> > >>> default: <--- primary bean
> > >>> ...
> > >>> second-bean:
> > >>> ....
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/
> context/annotation/Requires.html
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances.
> This
> > >>>> is what
> > >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick or thin
> > client
> > >>>> per
> > >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can utilize all the
> > CPUs
> > >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the ability to
> > configure
> > >>>> several clients per application. As far as I understand, Micronaut
> > >>>> distinguishes clients per the "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> > property,
> > >>>> right?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By looking at
> the
> > >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > >>>> <
> > >>>>
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> > >>>> >,
> > >>>> that defines org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> > >>>> property
> > >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that Micronaut could
> > >>>> introspect
> > >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared these
> > properties
> > >>>> table
> > >>>> <
> > >>>>
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/
> snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > >>>> >.
> > >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin client in a
> > >>>> YAML
> > >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the ClientConfiguration
> > >>>> (Ignite
> > >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some settings such as
> > >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this sound accurate
> > >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just swap the
> "path"
> > >>>> that
> > >>>> is the String with the "config" that is IgniteConfiguration. Then
> let
> > >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and allow a
> > >>>> developer
> > >>>> to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder or memory
> > >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find IgniteConfiguration defaults
> > here
> > >>>> <
> > >>>>
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/
> core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/
> IgniteConfiguration.java
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> .
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -
> > >>>> Denis
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <mpollind@gmail.com
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances.
> This
> > >>>> is what
> > >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was originally
> > >>>> trying to
> > >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite instance but
> found
> > I
> > >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what defaults are
> set
> > >>>> for
> > >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't be covered
> > >>>> with how
> > >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations. @ConfigurationProperty can only
> be
> > >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have multiple
> > factories
> > >>>> and
> > >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming. In this
> > >>>> situation
> > >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal in this
> > >>>> situation when
> > >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be able to cover
> > >>>> enough
> > >>>> > of the configuration with
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default: address:
> > -
> > >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > thin-client-2:
> > >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
> > >>>> >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and the
> current
> > >>>> > version
> > >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.
> IgniteClientConfiguration
> > >>>> > > <
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > class,
> > >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to
> IgniteConfiguration
> > >>>> (or, to
> > >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration as it's
> > done
> > >>>> for
> > >>>> > the
> > >>>> > > Mongo driver
> > >>>> > > <
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/
> latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/
> DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > >>>> > > >).
> > >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the developers might
> need
> > >>>> to
> > >>>> > > start an embedded
> > >>>> > > Ignite server node
> > >>>> > > <
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/
> deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > >>>> > > >.
> > >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to the Ignite
> > clients
> > >>>> > only.
> > >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> > >>>> > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I would
> > replace
> > >>>> the
> > >>>> > > "path"
> > >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
> > >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do that, then
> the
> > >>>> > > developers
> > >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the IgniteConfiguration
> > >>>> straight
> > >>>> > in
> > >>>> > > the
> > >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite Spring Boot
> > >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> > >>>> > > <
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > >>>> > > >.
> > >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> > >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I would
> > rework
> > >>>> the
> > >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking our Spring
> > >>>> Boot
> > >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> > >>>> > > <
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#
> set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
> > >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > >>>> > > <
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/
> blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/
> IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > already
> > >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename "configuration" to
> > >>>> "config",
> > >>>> > > and
> > >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass the
> > >>>> transactional
> > >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format below:
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > >>>> > > name:
> > >>>> > > config:
> > >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > -
> > >>>> > > Denis
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > > wrote:
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get wrapped into a
> > >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the relevant
> sections
> > >>>> of
> > >>>> > code
> > >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the methods that
> > get
> > >>>> > called
> > >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully this helps.
> > >>>> The key
> > >>>> > is
> > >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can be
> > changed
> > >>>> if
> > >>>> > > there
> > >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default it uses this
> > >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/
> DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > >>>> > > > ).
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > >>>> > > .
> > >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how this could
> > be
> > >>>> > > adjusted.
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the value
> is
> > >>>> not
> > >>>> > > present
> > >>>> > > > in the cache.
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > >>>> > > > get:
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > CachePut:
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null else it
> > >>>> will
> > >>>> > > issue a
> > >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code because I use
> > >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> > >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and write
> some
> > >>>> > > additional
> > >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > >>>> > > > put:
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the key.
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/
> master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/
> interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > >>>> > > > invalidate:
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/
> rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/
> IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > > wrote:
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using @CachePut,
> > >>>> @Cacheable
> > >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was
> trying
> > to
> > >>>> > > > understand
> > >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would be the
> > underlying
> > >>>> > Ignite
> > >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those operations are
> > >>>> performed?
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below method then how
> the
> > >>>> result
> > >>>> > of
> > >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> > >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > >>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
> > >>>> > > > > }
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > Regards,
> > >>>> > > > > Saikat
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <
> > >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this would
> need
> > >>>> to be
> > >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into multiple modules.
> > >>>> > > ignite-core,
> > >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have
> ignite-data
> > >>>> but
> > >>>> > that
> > >>>> > > > will
> > >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but the basic
> > >>>> config is
> > >>>> > > > > mostly
> > >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API described in the
> > >>>> wiki and
> > >>>> > > make
> > >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm
> missing
> > >>>> an
> > >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that would fit
> > into
> > >>>> this
> > >>>> > > > > scheme.
> > >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm sure
> > >>>> something
> > >>>> > > > could
> > >>>> > > > > be
> > >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module that can
> be
> > >>>> > > optionally
> > >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this module also
> has a
> > >>>> > > dependency
> > >>>> > > > > on
> > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are the two
> > >>>> > interfaces
> > >>>> > > > that
> > >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to define the
> > >>>> > > > implementation,
> > >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and SyncCache
> > but
> > >>>> they
> > >>>> > > also
> > >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name of the
> > >>>> instance
> > >>>> > > to
> > >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the documentation
> I
> > >>>> believe
> > >>>> > > for
> > >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and Hazelcast
> > >>>> > implements
> > >>>> > > > the
> > >>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml
> > >>>> configuration in
> > >>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache names are
> > >>>> provided
> > >>>> > > along
> > >>>> > > > > with
> > >>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be setup
> where a
> > >>>> list
> > >>>> > of
> > >>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a
> > >>>> configuration if
> > >>>> > > that
> > >>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/
> rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > >>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > wrote:
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions
> > with
> > >>>> > > respect
> > >>>> > > > to
> > >>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration and wanted to
> ask
> > >>>> if
> > >>>> > these
> > >>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for the
> > >>>> micronaut-ignite
> > >>>> > > > > > > integration.
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within the
> > >>>> given
> > >>>> > cache
> > >>>> > > > > name
> > >>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a method
> > >>>> > invocation
> > >>>> > > > > should
> > >>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation is
> > never
> > >>>> > > skipped.
> > >>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a method
> > >>>> should
> > >>>> > > cause
> > >>>> > > > > the
> > >>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev list,
> it
> > >>>> great
> > >>>> > to
> > >>>> > > > > learn
> > >>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > Regards,
> > >>>> > > > > > > Saikat
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <
> > >>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the details over
> > >>>> the next
> > >>>> > > few
> > >>>> > > > > > days
> > >>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
> > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <
> > >>>> dmagda@apache.org
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > > > wrote:
> > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the
> Ignite
> > >>>> > > namespace.
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note
> > to
> > >>>> the
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise,
> > we
> > >>>> need
> > >>>> > to
> > >>>> > > > > > approve
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > -
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <
> > >>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?
> username=mpollind
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've
> > put
> > >>>> > > > together:
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > >>>> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >> --
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
> > >>>> > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
>
--
-
Denis
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
I don't think micronaut will be able to infer the communicationSpi, so you
need to define it separately as follows:
https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java#L40-L43.
With this setup the configuration should look pretty much like the
spring-boot sample you showed me:
https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration.
I agree it should make the configuration easier with just allowing a single
instance and it matches up well with spring-boot configuration:
https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/context/annotation/Requires.html.
Since its mostly a niche usecase then having that as the default use case
seems pretty ideal to me. the definition will work as follows:
ignite:
enable true
ignite-instance-name: name
communication-spi:
local-port: 5555
data-storage-configuration:
...
cache-configurations:
- name: accounts
queryEntities:
- tableName: NAME
...
- ...
ignite-thin:
enable: false
instance-name: name
Micronaut has some mechanism to enforce the presence of something that
should suffice for this usecase:
https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/context/annotation/Requires.html
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Michael,
>
>
> > The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by default so
> > you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the default
> > bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is present.
>
>
> The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we shouldn't bother about
> the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I said before,
> that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is designed for
> micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly think of a use
> case when a micro-service or function would need to boot up several Ignite
> clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite instance per
> application process? What's your view on this? It will significantly
> simplify the design and implementation of integration. If anybody needs
> several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them manually.
>
> By default the
> > thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache if that
> > would be ok?
>
>
> If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply disallow
> auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a thick or thin
> client). For example, if a thick client is already started, then throw an
> exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and vice versa). As
> for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut, I would recommend
> using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a serverless function
> (the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while for micro-services
> you can use both types of clients.
>
> The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was mainly for
> > convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant.
>
>
> Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about Micronaut. Let me
> double-check the following with you.
>
> Assume these are the only fields of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
>
> private final String name;
>
> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> IgniteConfiguration();
>
>
> Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below without having it
> as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you getting a
> NullPointerException?
>
> ignite:
> name: some_name
> igniteConfiguration:
> communicationSpi:
> {redefining some fields of the SPI}
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together along with some
> > example test cases. I feel like this might get a little complicated but I
> > think it's doable.
> >
> >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> > along with some relevant test:
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was mainly
> for
> >> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant. Will
> have
> >> to be kind of specific since the configuration might get a little
> >> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> >>
> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/convert/format/MapFormat.html
> >> which will just map fields and values and you can pass that to somewhere
> >> else to be manage it.
> >>
> >> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
> >>
> >> private final String name;
> >> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> >> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new
> IgniteConfiguration();
> >> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> >> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new
> TcpCommunicationSpi();
> >>
> >> [image: image.png]
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is declared. I think
> we
> >>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If i'm not mistaken
> for
> >>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the name since
> that is
> >>> provided by the key for each configuration under EachProperty. The
> name is
> >>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the same
> qualifier for
> >>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the primary bean
> for
> >>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance active at a
> time.
> >>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by default
> so
> >>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the default
> >>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is
> present.
> >>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use one instance of
> >>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again. By default the
> >>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache if that
> >>> would be ok?
> >>>
> >>> ignite:
> >>> thick-clients:
> >>> default: <--- primary bean
> >>> ...
> >>> second-bean:
> >>> ...
> >>> thin-clients:
> >>> default: <--- primary bean
> >>> ...
> >>> second-bean:
> >>> ....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/context/annotation/Requires.html
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances. This
> >>>> is what
> >>>> > I have in the current master branch.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick or thin
> client
> >>>> per
> >>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can utilize all the
> CPUs
> >>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the ability to
> configure
> >>>> several clients per application. As far as I understand, Micronaut
> >>>> distinguishes clients per the "IgniteClientConfiguration.name"
> property,
> >>>> right?
> >>>>
> >>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By looking at the
> >>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> >>>> <
> >>>>
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> >>>> >,
> >>>> that defines org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
> >>>> property
> >>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that Micronaut could
> >>>> introspect
> >>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared these
> properties
> >>>> table
> >>>> <
> >>>>
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> >>>> >.
> >>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin client in a
> >>>> YAML
> >>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the ClientConfiguration
> >>>> (Ignite
> >>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some settings such as
> >>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this sound accurate
> >>>> concerning Micronaut?
> >>>>
> >>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just swap the "path"
> >>>> that
> >>>> is the String with the "config" that is IgniteConfiguration. Then let
> >>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and allow a
> >>>> developer
> >>>> to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder or memory
> >>>> settings). Just in case, you can find IgniteConfiguration defaults
> here
> >>>> <
> >>>>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/IgniteConfiguration.java
> >>>> >
> >>>> .
> >>>>
> >>>> -
> >>>> Denis
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances. This
> >>>> is what
> >>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was originally
> >>>> trying to
> >>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite instance but found
> I
> >>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what defaults are set
> >>>> for
> >>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't be covered
> >>>> with how
> >>>> > micronaut sets up configurations. @ConfigurationProperty can only be
> >>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have multiple
> factories
> >>>> and
> >>>> > label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming. In this
> >>>> situation
> >>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal in this
> >>>> situation when
> >>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be able to cover
> >>>> enough
> >>>> > of the configuration with
> >>>> >
> >>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default: address:
> -
> >>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> >>>> >
> >>>> > thin-client-2:
> >>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
> >>>> >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and the current
> >>>> > version
> >>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> >>>> > > <
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > class,
> >>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to IgniteConfiguration
> >>>> (or, to
> >>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration as it's
> done
> >>>> for
> >>>> > the
> >>>> > > Mongo driver
> >>>> > > <
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> >>>> > > >).
> >>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the developers might need
> >>>> to
> >>>> > > start an embedded
> >>>> > > Ignite server node
> >>>> > > <
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> >>>> > > >.
> >>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to the Ignite
> clients
> >>>> > only.
> >>>> > > 2. Presently,
> >>>> > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> >>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I would
> replace
> >>>> the
> >>>> > > "path"
> >>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
> >>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do that, then the
> >>>> > > developers
> >>>> > > will be able to set any property of the IgniteConfiguration
> >>>> straight
> >>>> > in
> >>>> > > the
> >>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite Spring Boot
> >>>> > > Auto-Configuration
> >>>> > > <
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> >>>> > > >.
> >>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> >>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I would
> rework
> >>>> the
> >>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking our Spring
> >>>> Boot
> >>>> > > integration for the thin client
> >>>> > > <
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
> >>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> >>>> > > <
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > already
> >>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename "configuration" to
> >>>> "config",
> >>>> > > and
> >>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass the
> >>>> transactional
> >>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format below:
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
> >>>> > > name:
> >>>> > > config:
> >>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> >>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> >>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
> >>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> >>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > -
> >>>> > > Denis
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com
> >>>> >
> >>>> > > wrote:
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get wrapped into a
> >>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the relevant sections
> >>>> of
> >>>> > code
> >>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the methods that
> get
> >>>> > called
> >>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully this helps.
> >>>> The key
> >>>> > is
> >>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can be
> changed
> >>>> if
> >>>> > > there
> >>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default it uses this
> >>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> >>>> > > > ).
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> >>>> > > .
> >>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how this could
> be
> >>>> > > adjusted.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > Cacheable:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the value is
> >>>> not
> >>>> > > present
> >>>> > > > in the cache.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> >>>> > > > get:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > CachePut:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null else it
> >>>> will
> >>>> > > issue a
> >>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code because I use
> >>>> > > putIfAbsent
> >>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and write some
> >>>> > > additional
> >>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> >>>> > > > put:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> >>>> > > > invalidate:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the key.
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> >>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> >>>> > > > invalidate:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
> >>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > > wrote:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using @CachePut,
> >>>> @Cacheable
> >>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was trying
> to
> >>>> > > > understand
> >>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would be the
> underlying
> >>>> > Ignite
> >>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those operations are
> >>>> performed?
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below method then how the
> >>>> result
> >>>> > of
> >>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > @Cacheable
> >>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> >>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
> >>>> > > > > }
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > Regards,
> >>>> > > > > Saikat
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <
> >>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
> >>>> > > > > wrote:
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this would need
> >>>> to be
> >>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into multiple modules.
> >>>> > > ignite-core,
> >>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have ignite-data
> >>>> but
> >>>> > that
> >>>> > > > will
> >>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but the basic
> >>>> config is
> >>>> > > > > mostly
> >>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API described in the
> >>>> wiki and
> >>>> > > make
> >>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm missing
> >>>> an
> >>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that would fit
> into
> >>>> this
> >>>> > > > > scheme.
> >>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm sure
> >>>> something
> >>>> > > > could
> >>>> > > > > be
> >>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module that can be
> >>>> > > optionally
> >>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this module also has a
> >>>> > > dependency
> >>>> > > > > on
> >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are the two
> >>>> > interfaces
> >>>> > > > that
> >>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to define the
> >>>> > > > implementation,
> >>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and SyncCache
> but
> >>>> they
> >>>> > > also
> >>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name of the
> >>>> instance
> >>>> > > to
> >>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the documentation I
> >>>> believe
> >>>> > > for
> >>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and Hazelcast
> >>>> > implements
> >>>> > > > the
> >>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml
> >>>> configuration in
> >>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache names are
> >>>> provided
> >>>> > > along
> >>>> > > > > with
> >>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be setup where a
> >>>> list
> >>>> > of
> >>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a
> >>>> configuration if
> >>>> > > that
> >>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <
> >>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > wrote:
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions
> with
> >>>> > > respect
> >>>> > > > to
> >>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration and wanted to ask
> >>>> if
> >>>> > these
> >>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for the
> >>>> micronaut-ignite
> >>>> > > > > > > integration.
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within the
> >>>> given
> >>>> > cache
> >>>> > > > > name
> >>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a method
> >>>> > invocation
> >>>> > > > > should
> >>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation is
> never
> >>>> > > skipped.
> >>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a method
> >>>> should
> >>>> > > cause
> >>>> > > > > the
> >>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev list, it
> >>>> great
> >>>> > to
> >>>> > > > > learn
> >>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > Regards,
> >>>> > > > > > > Saikat
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <
> >>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > wrote:
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the details over
> >>>> the next
> >>>> > > few
> >>>> > > > > > days
> >>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <
> >>>> dmagda@apache.org
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > > > wrote:
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the Ignite
> >>>> > > namespace.
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note
> to
> >>>> the
> >>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise,
> we
> >>>> need
> >>>> > to
> >>>> > > > > > approve
> >>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > > -
> >>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <
> >>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> >>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> >>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
> >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
> >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> >>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've
> put
> >>>> > > > together:
> >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> >>>> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> >>>> > > > > > > > >> --
> >>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
> >>>> > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> >>>> > > > > > > > >>
> >>>> > > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > > >
> >>>> > > > > >
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Michael,
> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by default so
> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the default
> bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is present.
The more I'm thinking the more I'm convinced that we shouldn't bother about
the auto-configuration of several Ignite instances. As I said before,
that's an occasional use case. Furthermore, Micronout is designed for
micro-services and serverless functions and I can hardly think of a use
case when a micro-service or function would need to boot up several Ignite
clients. What if we let to auto-configure a single Ignite instance per
application process? What's your view on this? It will significantly
simplify the design and implementation of integration. If anybody needs
several Ignite instances, then he can instantiate them manually.
By default the
> thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache if that
> would be ok?
If you agree on my proposal above, then I would simply disallow
auto-starting more than one Ignite instance (let it be a thick or thin
client). For example, if a thick client is already started, then throw an
exception on an attempt to initialize a thin client (and vice versa). As
for thick vs. thin client usage in relation to Micronaut, I would recommend
using the thin client if Micronaut is deployed in a serverless function
(the thin client connects to the cluster faster), while for micro-services
you can use both types of clients.
The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was mainly for
> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant.
Ok, seems that I'm missing some important point about Micronaut. Let me
double-check the following with you.
Assume these are the only fields of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration:
private final String name;
@ConfigurationBuilder()
private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new IgniteConfiguration();
Will I be able to set up the communicationSpi bean below without having it
as a field of the DefaultIgniteConfiguration? Are you getting a
NullPointerException?
ignite:
name: some_name
igniteConfiguration:
communicationSpi:
{redefining some fields of the SPI}
-
Denis
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:17 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together along with some
> example test cases. I feel like this might get a little complicated but I
> think it's doable.
>
>
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
> along with some relevant test:
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was mainly for
>> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant. Will have
>> to be kind of specific since the configuration might get a little
>> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
>> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/convert/format/MapFormat.html
>> which will just map fields and values and you can pass that to somewhere
>> else to be manage it.
>>
>> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
>>
>> private final String name;
>> @ConfigurationBuilder()
>> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new IgniteConfiguration();
>> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
>> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new TcpCommunicationSpi();
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is declared. I think we
>>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If i'm not mistaken for
>>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the name since that is
>>> provided by the key for each configuration under EachProperty. The name is
>>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the same qualifier for
>>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the primary bean for
>>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance active at a time.
>>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by default so
>>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the default
>>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is present.
>>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use one instance of
>>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again. By default the
>>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache if that
>>> would be ok?
>>>
>>> ignite:
>>> thick-clients:
>>> default: <--- primary bean
>>> ...
>>> second-bean:
>>> ...
>>> thin-clients:
>>> default: <--- primary bean
>>> ...
>>> second-bean:
>>> ....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/context/annotation/Requires.html
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances. This
>>>> is what
>>>> > I have in the current master branch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick or thin client
>>>> per
>>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can utilize all the CPUs
>>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the ability to configure
>>>> several clients per application. As far as I understand, Micronaut
>>>> distinguishes clients per the "IgniteClientConfiguration.name" property,
>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By looking at the
>>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>> <
>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
>>>> >,
>>>> that defines org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration
>>>> property
>>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that Micronaut could
>>>> introspect
>>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared these properties
>>>> table
>>>> <
>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>> >.
>>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin client in a
>>>> YAML
>>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the ClientConfiguration
>>>> (Ignite
>>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some settings such as
>>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this sound accurate
>>>> concerning Micronaut?
>>>>
>>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just swap the "path"
>>>> that
>>>> is the String with the "config" that is IgniteConfiguration. Then let
>>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and allow a
>>>> developer
>>>> to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder or memory
>>>> settings). Just in case, you can find IgniteConfiguration defaults here
>>>> <
>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/IgniteConfiguration.java
>>>> >
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> Denis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances. This
>>>> is what
>>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was originally
>>>> trying to
>>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite instance but found I
>>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what defaults are set
>>>> for
>>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't be covered
>>>> with how
>>>> > micronaut sets up configurations. @ConfigurationProperty can only be
>>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have multiple factories
>>>> and
>>>> > label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming. In this
>>>> situation
>>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal in this
>>>> situation when
>>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be able to cover
>>>> enough
>>>> > of the configuration with
>>>> >
>>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default: address: -
>>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
>>>> >
>>>> > thin-client-2:
>>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
>>>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and the current
>>>> > version
>>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteClientConfiguration.java
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > class,
>>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to IgniteConfiguration
>>>> (or, to
>>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration as it's done
>>>> for
>>>> > the
>>>> > > Mongo driver
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
>>>> > > >).
>>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the developers might need
>>>> to
>>>> > > start an embedded
>>>> > > Ignite server node
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
>>>> > > >.
>>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to the Ignite clients
>>>> > only.
>>>> > > 2. Presently,
>>>> > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I would replace
>>>> the
>>>> > > "path"
>>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
>>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do that, then the
>>>> > > developers
>>>> > > will be able to set any property of the IgniteConfiguration
>>>> straight
>>>> > in
>>>> > > the
>>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite Spring Boot
>>>> > > Auto-Configuration
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>> > > >.
>>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
>>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I would rework
>>>> the
>>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking our Spring
>>>> Boot
>>>> > > integration for the thin client
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
>>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>>> > > <
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > already
>>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename "configuration" to
>>>> "config",
>>>> > > and
>>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass the
>>>> transactional
>>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format below:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
>>>> > > name:
>>>> > > config:
>>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
>>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
>>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
>>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
>>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
>>>> > >
>>>> > > -
>>>> > > Denis
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <mpollind@gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get wrapped into a
>>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the relevant sections
>>>> of
>>>> > code
>>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the methods that get
>>>> > called
>>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully this helps.
>>>> The key
>>>> > is
>>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can be changed
>>>> if
>>>> > > there
>>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default it uses this
>>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
>>>> > > > ).
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
>>>> > > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>> > > .
>>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how this could be
>>>> > > adjusted.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Cacheable:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the value is
>>>> not
>>>> > > present
>>>> > > > in the cache.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
>>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>> > > > get:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > CachePut:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null else it
>>>> will
>>>> > > issue a
>>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code because I use
>>>> > > putIfAbsent
>>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and write some
>>>> > > additional
>>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
>>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>> > > > put:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
>>>> > > > invalidate:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the key.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
>>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>>> > > > invalidate:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
>>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using @CachePut,
>>>> @Cacheable
>>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was trying to
>>>> > > > understand
>>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would be the underlying
>>>> > Ignite
>>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those operations are
>>>> performed?
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below method then how the
>>>> result
>>>> > of
>>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > @Cacheable
>>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
>>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
>>>> > > > > }
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Regards,
>>>> > > > > Saikat
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this would need
>>>> to be
>>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into multiple modules.
>>>> > > ignite-core,
>>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have ignite-data
>>>> but
>>>> > that
>>>> > > > will
>>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but the basic
>>>> config is
>>>> > > > > mostly
>>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API described in the
>>>> wiki and
>>>> > > make
>>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm missing
>>>> an
>>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that would fit into
>>>> this
>>>> > > > > scheme.
>>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm sure
>>>> something
>>>> > > > could
>>>> > > > > be
>>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module that can be
>>>> > > optionally
>>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this module also has a
>>>> > > dependency
>>>> > > > > on
>>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are the two
>>>> > interfaces
>>>> > > > that
>>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to define the
>>>> > > > implementation,
>>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and SyncCache but
>>>> they
>>>> > > also
>>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name of the
>>>> instance
>>>> > > to
>>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the documentation I
>>>> believe
>>>> > > for
>>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and Hazelcast
>>>> > implements
>>>> > > > the
>>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml
>>>> configuration in
>>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache names are
>>>> provided
>>>> > > along
>>>> > > > > with
>>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be setup where a
>>>> list
>>>> > of
>>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a
>>>> configuration if
>>>> > > that
>>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <
>>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions with
>>>> > > respect
>>>> > > > to
>>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration and wanted to ask
>>>> if
>>>> > these
>>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for the
>>>> micronaut-ignite
>>>> > > > > > > integration.
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within the
>>>> given
>>>> > cache
>>>> > > > > name
>>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a method
>>>> > invocation
>>>> > > > > should
>>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation is never
>>>> > > skipped.
>>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a method
>>>> should
>>>> > > cause
>>>> > > > > the
>>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev list, it
>>>> great
>>>> > to
>>>> > > > > learn
>>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > Regards,
>>>> > > > > > > Saikat
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <
>>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the details over
>>>> the next
>>>> > > few
>>>> > > > > > days
>>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <
>>>> dmagda@apache.org
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the Ignite
>>>> > > namespace.
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note to
>>>> the
>>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise, we
>>>> need
>>>> > to
>>>> > > > > > approve
>>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > > -
>>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <
>>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've put
>>>> > > > together:
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >> --
>>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
>>>> > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>>> > > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > > >
>>>> > > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
Here is the initial setup that I quickly threw together along with some
example test cases. I feel like this might get a little complicated but I
think it's doable.
https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework-1/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/DefaultIgniteConfiguration.java
along with some relevant test:
https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework-1/ignite-core/src/test/groovy/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteConfigurationSpec.groovy#L55-L73
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:49 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was mainly for
> convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant. Will have
> to be kind of specific since the configuration might get a little
> complicated. The other thing you can do is use
> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/convert/format/MapFormat.html
> which will just map fields and values and you can pass that to somewhere
> else to be manage it.
>
> so you will need to do something like this as follows:
>
> private final String name;
> @ConfigurationBuilder()
> private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new IgniteConfiguration();
> @ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
> private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new TcpCommunicationSpi();
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is declared. I think we
>> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If i'm not mistaken for
>> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the name since that is
>> provided by the key for each configuration under EachProperty. The name is
>> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the same qualifier for
>> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the primary bean for
>> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance active at a time.
>> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by default so
>> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the default
>> bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is present.
>> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use one instance of
>> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again. By default the
>> thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache if that
>> would be ok?
>>
>> ignite:
>> thick-clients:
>> default: <--- primary bean
>> ...
>> second-bean:
>> ...
>> thin-clients:
>> default: <--- primary bean
>> ...
>> second-bean:
>> ....
>>
>>
>>
>> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/context/annotation/Requires.html
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances. This is
>>> what
>>> > I have in the current master branch.
>>>
>>>
>>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick or thin client
>>> per
>>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can utilize all the CPUs
>>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the ability to configure
>>> several clients per application. As far as I understand, Micronaut
>>> distinguishes clients per the "IgniteClientConfiguration.name" property,
>>> right?
>>>
>>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
>>>
>>>
>>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By looking at the
>>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>> <
>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
>>> >,
>>> that defines org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration property
>>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that Micronaut could
>>> introspect
>>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared these properties
>>> table
>>> <
>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>> >.
>>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin client in a YAML
>>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the ClientConfiguration
>>> (Ignite
>>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some settings such as
>>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this sound accurate
>>> concerning Micronaut?
>>>
>>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just swap the "path"
>>> that
>>> is the String with the "config" that is IgniteConfiguration. Then let
>>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and allow a
>>> developer
>>> to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder or memory
>>> settings). Just in case, you can find IgniteConfiguration defaults here
>>> <
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/IgniteConfiguration.java
>>> >
>>> .
>>>
>>> -
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances. This is
>>> what
>>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was originally trying
>>> to
>>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite instance but found I
>>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what defaults are set
>>> for
>>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't be covered with
>>> how
>>> > micronaut sets up configurations. @ConfigurationProperty can only be
>>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have multiple factories
>>> and
>>> > label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming. In this
>>> situation
>>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal in this situation
>>> when
>>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be able to cover
>>> enough
>>> > of the configuration with
>>> >
>>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default: address: -
>>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
>>> >
>>> > thin-client-2:
>>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
>>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and the current
>>> > version
>>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteClientConfiguration.java
>>> > > >
>>> > > class,
>>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
>>> > >
>>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to IgniteConfiguration
>>> (or, to
>>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration as it's done
>>> for
>>> > the
>>> > > Mongo driver
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
>>> > > >).
>>> > > The rationale for this change is that the developers might need to
>>> > > start an embedded
>>> > > Ignite server node
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
>>> > > >.
>>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to the Ignite clients
>>> > only.
>>> > > 2. Presently,
>>> > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I would replace
>>> the
>>> > > "path"
>>> > > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
>>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do that, then the
>>> > > developers
>>> > > will be able to set any property of the IgniteConfiguration
>>> straight
>>> > in
>>> > > the
>>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite Spring Boot
>>> > > Auto-Configuration
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>> > > >.
>>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
>>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I would rework
>>> the
>>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking our Spring Boot
>>> > > integration for the thin client
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>>> > > >
>>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
>>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>>> > > <
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
>>> > > >
>>> > > already
>>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename "configuration" to
>>> "config",
>>> > > and
>>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass the
>>> transactional
>>> > > settings via the YAML following the format below:
>>> > >
>>> > > ignite-thin-client:
>>> > > name:
>>> > > config:
>>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
>>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
>>> > > transactionConfiguration:
>>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
>>> > > defaultTxTimeout
>>> > >
>>> > > -
>>> > > Denis
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get wrapped into a
>>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the relevant sections of
>>> > code
>>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the methods that get
>>> > called
>>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully this helps. The
>>> key
>>> > is
>>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can be changed
>>> if
>>> > > there
>>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default it uses this
>>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
>>> > > > ).
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>> > > .
>>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how this could be
>>> > > adjusted.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Cacheable:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the value is not
>>> > > present
>>> > > > in the cache.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>> > > > get:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>>> > > >
>>> > > > CachePut:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null else it will
>>> > > issue a
>>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code because I use
>>> > > putIfAbsent
>>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and write some
>>> > > additional
>>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>> > > > put:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
>>> > > > invalidate:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>> > > >
>>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the key.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
>>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>>> > > > invalidate:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
>>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>> > >
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Hi Michael,
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using @CachePut,
>>> @Cacheable
>>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was trying to
>>> > > > understand
>>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would be the underlying
>>> > Ignite
>>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those operations are
>>> performed?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > An example like when user call this below method then how the
>>> result
>>> > of
>>> > > > > getValue is cached?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > @Cacheable
>>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
>>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
>>> > > > > }
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Regards,
>>> > > > > Saikat
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this would need to
>>> be
>>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into multiple modules.
>>> > > ignite-core,
>>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have ignite-data but
>>> > that
>>> > > > will
>>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but the basic
>>> config is
>>> > > > > mostly
>>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API described in the wiki
>>> and
>>> > > make
>>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm missing an
>>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that would fit into
>>> this
>>> > > > > scheme.
>>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm sure
>>> something
>>> > > > could
>>> > > > > be
>>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module that can be
>>> > > optionally
>>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this module also has a
>>> > > dependency
>>> > > > > on
>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are the two
>>> > interfaces
>>> > > > that
>>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to define the
>>> > > > implementation,
>>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and SyncCache but
>>> they
>>> > > also
>>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name of the
>>> instance
>>> > > to
>>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the documentation I
>>> believe
>>> > > for
>>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and Hazelcast
>>> > implements
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml
>>> configuration in
>>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache names are
>>> provided
>>> > > along
>>> > > > > with
>>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be setup where a
>>> list
>>> > of
>>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a configuration
>>> if
>>> > > that
>>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <
>>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions with
>>> > > respect
>>> > > > to
>>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration and wanted to ask if
>>> > these
>>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for the
>>> micronaut-ignite
>>> > > > > > > integration.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within the given
>>> > cache
>>> > > > > name
>>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a method
>>> > invocation
>>> > > > > should
>>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation is never
>>> > > skipped.
>>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a method
>>> should
>>> > > cause
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev list, it
>>> great
>>> > to
>>> > > > > learn
>>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Regards,
>>> > > > > > > Saikat
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <
>>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> >
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the details over the
>>> next
>>> > > few
>>> > > > > > days
>>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <
>>> dmagda@apache.org
>>> > >
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the Ignite
>>> > > namespace.
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note to
>>> the
>>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise, we
>>> need
>>> > to
>>> > > > > > approve
>>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > -
>>> > > > > > > > > Denis
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <
>>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've put
>>> > > > together:
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >> --
>>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
>>> > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>>> > > > > > > > >>
>>> > > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
The main reason why I was using the spring bean definition was mainly for
convenience and I'm not sure what fields are the most relevant. Will have
to be kind of specific since the configuration might get a little
complicated. The other thing you can do is use
https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/core/convert/format/MapFormat.html
which will just map fields and values and you can pass that to somewhere
else to be manage it.
so you will need to do something like this as follows:
private final String name;
@ConfigurationBuilder()
private IgniteConfiguration igniteConfiguration = new IgniteConfiguration();
@ConfigurationBuilder(value = "communicationSpi")
private TcpCommunicationSpi communicationSpi = new TcpCommunicationSpi();
[image: image.png]
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Its whatever is setup by default when the object is declared. I think we
> will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If i'm not mistaken for
> the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the name since that is
> provided by the key for each configuration under EachProperty. The name is
> the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the same qualifier for
> the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the primary bean for
> most part. I think you can only have one cache instance active at a time.
> The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by default so
> you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the default
> bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is present.
> One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use one instance of
> DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again. By default the
> thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache if that
> would be ok?
>
> ignite:
> thick-clients:
> default: <--- primary bean
> ...
> second-bean:
> ...
> thin-clients:
> default: <--- primary bean
> ...
> second-bean:
> ....
>
>
>
> https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/context/annotation/Requires.html
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances. This is
>> what
>> > I have in the current master branch.
>>
>>
>> In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick or thin client
>> per
>> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can utilize all the CPUs
>> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the ability to configure
>> several clients per application. As far as I understand, Micronaut
>> distinguishes clients per the "IgniteClientConfiguration.name" property,
>> right?
>>
>> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
>>
>>
>> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By looking at the
>> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>> <
>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
>> >,
>> that defines org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration property
>> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that Micronaut could introspect
>> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared these properties
>> table
>> <
>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>> >.
>> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin client in a YAML
>> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the ClientConfiguration (Ignite
>> sets the defaults), and then I can override some settings such as
>> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this sound accurate
>> concerning Micronaut?
>>
>> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just swap the "path" that
>> is the String with the "config" that is IgniteConfiguration. Then let
>> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and allow a developer
>> to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder or memory
>> settings). Just in case, you can find IgniteConfiguration defaults here
>> <
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/IgniteConfiguration.java
>> >
>> .
>>
>> -
>> Denis
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances. This is
>> what
>> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was originally trying
>> to
>> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite instance but found I
>> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what defaults are set for
>> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't be covered with
>> how
>> > micronaut sets up configurations. @ConfigurationProperty can only be
>> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have multiple factories
>> and
>> > label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming. In this
>> situation
>> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal in this situation
>> when
>> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be able to cover
>> enough
>> > of the configuration with
>> >
>> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default: address: -
>> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
>> >
>> > thin-client-2:
>> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
>> >
>> >
>> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
>> > >
>> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and the current
>> > version
>> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteClientConfiguration.java
>> > > >
>> > > class,
>> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to IgniteConfiguration
>> (or, to
>> > > avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration as it's done
>> for
>> > the
>> > > Mongo driver
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
>> > > >).
>> > > The rationale for this change is that the developers might need to
>> > > start an embedded
>> > > Ignite server node
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
>> > > >.
>> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to the Ignite clients
>> > only.
>> > > 2. Presently,
>> > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
>> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I would replace
>> the
>> > > "path"
>> > > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
>> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do that, then the
>> > > developers
>> > > will be able to set any property of the IgniteConfiguration
>> straight
>> > in
>> > > the
>> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite Spring Boot
>> > > Auto-Configuration
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>> > > >.
>> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
>> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I would rework
>> the
>> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking our Spring Boot
>> > > integration for the thin client
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
>> > > >
>> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
>> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
>> > > <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
>> > > >
>> > > already
>> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename "configuration" to
>> "config",
>> > > and
>> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass the transactional
>> > > settings via the YAML following the format below:
>> > >
>> > > ignite-thin-client:
>> > > name:
>> > > config:
>> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
>> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
>> > > transactionConfiguration:
>> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
>> > > defaultTxTimeout
>> > >
>> > > -
>> > > Denis
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get wrapped into a
>> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the relevant sections of
>> > code
>> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the methods that get
>> > called
>> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully this helps. The
>> key
>> > is
>> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can be changed if
>> > > there
>> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default it uses this
>> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
>> > > > ).
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>> > > .
>> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how this could be
>> > > adjusted.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cacheable:
>> > > >
>> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the value is not
>> > > present
>> > > > in the cache.
>> > > >
>> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>> > > > get:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>> > > >
>> > > > CachePut:
>> > > >
>> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null else it will
>> > > issue a
>> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code because I use
>> > > putIfAbsent
>> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and write some
>> > > additional
>> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
>> > > >
>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>> > > > put:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
>> > > > invalidate:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>> > > >
>> > > > CacheInvalidate:
>> > > >
>> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the key.
>> > > >
>> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
>> > > > -> ignite-cache:
>> > > > invalidate:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
>> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi Michael,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using @CachePut,
>> @Cacheable
>> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was trying to
>> > > > understand
>> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would be the underlying
>> > Ignite
>> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those operations are
>> performed?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > An example like when user call this below method then how the
>> result
>> > of
>> > > > > getValue is cached?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > @Cacheable
>> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
>> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
>> > > > > }
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > Saikat
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <
>> mpollind@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this would need to
>> be
>> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into multiple modules.
>> > > ignite-core,
>> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have ignite-data but
>> > that
>> > > > will
>> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but the basic
>> config is
>> > > > > mostly
>> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API described in the wiki
>> and
>> > > make
>> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm missing an
>> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that would fit into
>> this
>> > > > > scheme.
>> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm sure
>> something
>> > > > could
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > arranged that would work.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module that can be
>> > > optionally
>> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this module also has a
>> > > dependency
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are the two
>> > interfaces
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to define the
>> > > > implementation,
>> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and SyncCache but
>> they
>> > > also
>> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name of the
>> instance
>> > > to
>> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the documentation I
>> believe
>> > > for
>> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and Hazelcast
>> > implements
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml configuration
>> in
>> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache names are provided
>> > > along
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be setup where a
>> list
>> > of
>> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a configuration
>> if
>> > > that
>> > > > > > would be more ideal.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <
>> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions with
>> > > respect
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration and wanted to ask if
>> > these
>> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for the
>> micronaut-ignite
>> > > > > > > integration.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within the given
>> > cache
>> > > > > name
>> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a method
>> > invocation
>> > > > > should
>> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation is never
>> > > skipped.
>> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a method should
>> > > cause
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev list, it
>> great
>> > to
>> > > > > learn
>> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > > Saikat
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <
>> > > mpollind@gmail.com
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the details over the
>> next
>> > > few
>> > > > > > days
>> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <
>> dmagda@apache.org
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the Ignite
>> > > namespace.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note to
>> the
>> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise, we
>> need
>> > to
>> > > > > > approve
>> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <
>> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've put
>> > > > together:
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >> --
>> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
>> > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
Its whatever is setup by default when the object is declared. I think we
will have to define multiple ConfigurationBuilders If i'm not mistaken for
the IgniteConfiguration. you don't need to provide the name since that is
provided by the key for each configuration under EachProperty. The name is
the qualified name that refers to that bean and also the same qualifier for
the Ignite instance. For the most part will just use the primary bean for
most part. I think you can only have one cache instance active at a time.
The current way I have it setup is the primary bean is used by default so
you won't be able to use micronaut-cache with anything but the default
bean. I guess one can override the other if the configuration is present.
One problem I see is micronaut-cache. We can only use one instance of
DynamicCache but I need to verify how that works again. By default the
thick client instance will replace the thin-client DynamicCache if that
would be ok?
ignite:
thick-clients:
default: <--- primary bean
...
second-bean:
...
thin-clients:
default: <--- primary bean
...
second-bean:
....
https://docs.micronaut.io/latest/api/io/micronaut/context/annotation/Requires.html
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:13 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances. This is
> what
> > I have in the current master branch.
>
>
> In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick or thin client per
> application. The clients are multi-threaded and can utilize all the CPUs
> effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the ability to configure
> several clients per application. As far as I understand, Micronaut
> distinguishes clients per the "IgniteClientConfiguration.name" property,
> right?
>
> So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
>
>
> Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By looking at the
> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> <
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html
> >,
> that defines org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration property
> (under the name of "configuration"), I see that Micronaut could introspect
> all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared these properties
> table
> <
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> >.
> For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin client in a YAML
> file, Micronaut will create an instance of the ClientConfiguration (Ignite
> sets the defaults), and then I can override some settings such as
> "addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this sound accurate
> concerning Micronaut?
>
> Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just swap the "path" that
> is the String with the "config" that is IgniteConfiguration. Then let
> Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and allow a developer
> to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder or memory
> settings). Just in case, you can find IgniteConfiguration defaults here
> <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/IgniteConfiguration.java
> >
> .
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances. This is
> what
> > I have in the current master branch. I believe I was originally trying to
> > set-up the configuration with the default ignite instance but found I
> > couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what defaults are set for
> > IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't be covered with
> how
> > micronaut sets up configurations. @ConfigurationProperty can only be
> > defined on a known factory, there are ways to have multiple factories and
> > label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming. In this situation
> > providing your own bean would probably be more ideal in this situation
> when
> > I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be able to cover enough
> > of the configuration with
> >
> > ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default: address: -
> > "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> >
> > thin-client-2:
> > address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
> >
> >
> > you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
> > >
> > > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and the current
> > version
> > > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > > >
> > > class,
> > > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
> > >
> > > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to IgniteConfiguration (or,
> to
> > > avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration as it's done for
> > the
> > > Mongo driver
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > > >).
> > > The rationale for this change is that the developers might need to
> > > start an embedded
> > > Ignite server node
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > > >.
> > > So, I would not limit the integration scope to the Ignite clients
> > only.
> > > 2. Presently,
> > > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I would replace the
> > > "path"
> > > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
> > > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do that, then the
> > > developers
> > > will be able to set any property of the IgniteConfiguration straight
> > in
> > > the
> > > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite Spring Boot
> > > Auto-Configuration
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > >.
> > > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> > > 3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I would rework the
> > > Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking our Spring Boot
> > > integration for the thin client
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > > >
> > > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
> > > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > > >
> > > already
> > > adopts this approach. I would only rename "configuration" to
> "config",
> > > and
> > > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass the transactional
> > > settings via the YAML following the format below:
> > >
> > > ignite-thin-client:
> > > name:
> > > config:
> > > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > > transactionConfiguration:
> > > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > > defaultTxTimeout
> > >
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get wrapped into a
> > > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the relevant sections of
> > code
> > > > that would handle each annotation along with the methods that get
> > called
> > > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully this helps. The
> key
> > is
> > > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can be changed if
> > > there
> > > > is a better way to represent the key. By default it uses this
> > > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > > ).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > .
> > > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how this could be
> > > adjusted.
> > > >
> > > > Cacheable:
> > > >
> > > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the value is not
> > > present
> > > > in the cache.
> > > >
> > > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > get:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > > >
> > > > CachePut:
> > > >
> > > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null else it will
> > > issue a
> > > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code because I use
> > > putIfAbsent
> > > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and write some
> > > additional
> > > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > > >
> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > put:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > > invalidate:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > >
> > > > CacheInvalidate:
> > > >
> > > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the key.
> > > >
> > > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > > invalidate:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <
> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > >
> > > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using @CachePut, @Cacheable
> > > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was trying to
> > > > understand
> > > > > when user use these annotation then what would be the underlying
> > Ignite
> > > > > operation that will happen? and how those operations are performed?
> > > > >
> > > > > An example like when user call this below method then how the
> result
> > of
> > > > > getValue is cached?
> > > > >
> > > > > @Cacheable
> > > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Saikat
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this would need to be
> > > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The project at the moment is split into multiple modules.
> > > ignite-core,
> > > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have ignite-data but
> > that
> > > > will
> > > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but the basic config
> is
> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API described in the wiki
> and
> > > make
> > > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm missing an
> > > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that would fit into
> this
> > > > > scheme.
> > > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm sure
> something
> > > > could
> > > > > be
> > > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module that can be
> > > optionally
> > > > > > included in a micronaut project where this module also has a
> > > dependency
> > > > > on
> > > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are the two
> > interfaces
> > > > that
> > > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to define the
> > > > implementation,
> > > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and SyncCache but
> they
> > > also
> > > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name of the
> instance
> > > to
> > > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the documentation I
> believe
> > > for
> > > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and Hazelcast
> > implements
> > > > the
> > > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml configuration
> in
> > > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache names are provided
> > > along
> > > > > with
> > > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be setup where a list
> > of
> > > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a configuration if
> > > that
> > > > > > would be more ideal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions with
> > > respect
> > > > to
> > > > > > > Ignite Integration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I had a question specific to integration and wanted to ask if
> > these
> > > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for the
> micronaut-ignite
> > > > > > > integration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within the given
> > cache
> > > > > name
> > > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a method
> > invocation
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation is never
> > > skipped.
> > > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a method should
> > > cause
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev list, it great
> > to
> > > > > learn
> > > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Saikat
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the details over the
> next
> > > few
> > > > > > days
> > > > > > > > and we can go from there.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the Ignite
> > > namespace.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note to the
> > > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise, we
> need
> > to
> > > > > > approve
> > > > > > > > > every email you send.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> here is the link:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've put
> > > > together:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > >> Sent from:
> > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
>
> oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances. This is what
> I have in the current master branch.
In most cases, people start a single instance of a thick or thin client per
application. The clients are multi-threaded and can utilize all the CPUs
effectively. However, it's not harmful to have the ability to configure
several clients per application. As far as I understand, Micronaut
distinguishes clients per the "IgniteClientConfiguration.name" property,
right?
So what defaults are set for IgniteConfiguration?
Does it matter to Micronaut what those defaults are? By looking at the
IgniteThinClientConfiguration
<https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/api/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteThinClientConfiguration.html>,
that defines org.apache.ignite.configuration.ClientConfiguration property
(under the name of "configuration"), I see that Micronaut could introspect
all the fields of the ClientConfiguration and prepared these properties
table
<https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/#io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteThinClientConfiguration>.
For me, it means that whenever I am configuring the thin client in a YAML
file, Micronaut will create an instance of the ClientConfiguration (Ignite
sets the defaults), and then I can override some settings such as
"addresses" or "enablePartitionAwareness". Does this sound accurate
concerning Micronaut?
Jumping back to the IgniteConfiguration, I would just swap the "path" that
is the String with the "config" that is IgniteConfiguration. Then let
Ignite take care of the IgniteConfiguration defaults and allow a developer
to override some defaults (such as discoverySPI.ipFinder or memory
settings). Just in case, you can find IgniteConfiguration defaults here
<https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/configuration/IgniteConfiguration.java>
.
-
Denis
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:59 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances. This is what
> I have in the current master branch. I believe I was originally trying to
> set-up the configuration with the default ignite instance but found I
> couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what defaults are set for
> IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't be covered with how
> micronaut sets up configurations. @ConfigurationProperty can only be
> defined on a known factory, there are ways to have multiple factories and
> label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming. In this situation
> providing your own bean would probably be more ideal in this situation when
> I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be able to cover enough
> of the configuration with
>
> ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default: address: -
> "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
>
> thin-client-2:
> address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
>
>
> you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
> >
> > I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and the current
> version
> > of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > <
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> > >
> > class,
> > and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
> >
> > 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to IgniteConfiguration (or, to
> > avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration as it's done for
> the
> > Mongo driver
> > <
> >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> > >).
> > The rationale for this change is that the developers might need to
> > start an embedded
> > Ignite server node
> > <
> >
> https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> > >.
> > So, I would not limit the integration scope to the Ignite clients
> only.
> > 2. Presently,
> > io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> > supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I would replace the
> > "path"
> > parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
> > org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do that, then the
> > developers
> > will be able to set any property of the IgniteConfiguration straight
> in
> > the
> > main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite Spring Boot
> > Auto-Configuration
> > <
> >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > >.
> > Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> > 3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I would rework the
> > Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking our Spring Boot
> > integration for the thin client
> > <
> >
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> > >
> > as a reference. As I see, the current version of
> > IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> > <
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> > >
> > already
> > adopts this approach. I would only rename "configuration" to "config",
> > and
> > remove the "transaction" field since you can pass the transactional
> > settings via the YAML following the format below:
> >
> > ignite-thin-client:
> > name:
> > config:
> > addresses: <IP_addresses>
> > partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> > transactionConfiguration:
> > defaultTxConcurrency:...
> > defaultTxTimeout
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get wrapped into a
> > > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the relevant sections of
> code
> > > that would handle each annotation along with the methods that get
> called
> > > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully this helps. The key
> is
> > > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can be changed if
> > there
> > > is a better way to represent the key. By default it uses this
> > > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > > ).
> > >
> > >
> > > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > .
> > > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how this could be
> > adjusted.
> > >
> > > Cacheable:
> > >
> > > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the value is not
> > present
> > > in the cache.
> > >
> > > -> micronaut-cache:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > get:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> > >
> > > CachePut:
> > >
> > > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null else it will
> > issue a
> > > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code because I use
> > putIfAbsent
> > > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and write some
> > additional
> > > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> > >
> > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > put:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > > invalidate:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > >
> > > CacheInvalidate:
> > >
> > > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the key.
> > >
> > > --> micronaut-cache:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > > -> ignite-cache:
> > > invalidate:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Michael,
> > > >
> > > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using @CachePut, @Cacheable
> > > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was trying to
> > > understand
> > > > when user use these annotation then what would be the underlying
> Ignite
> > > > operation that will happen? and how those operations are performed?
> > > >
> > > > An example like when user call this below method then how the result
> of
> > > > getValue is cached?
> > > >
> > > > @Cacheable
> > > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Saikat
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this would need to be
> > > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > > >
> > > > > The project at the moment is split into multiple modules.
> > ignite-core,
> > > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have ignite-data but
> that
> > > will
> > > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but the basic config is
> > > > mostly
> > > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API described in the wiki and
> > make
> > > > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm missing an
> > > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that would fit into this
> > > > scheme.
> > > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm sure something
> > > could
> > > > be
> > > > > arranged that would work.
> > > > >
> > > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module that can be
> > optionally
> > > > > included in a micronaut project where this module also has a
> > dependency
> > > > on
> > > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are the two
> interfaces
> > > that
> > > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to define the
> > > implementation,
> > > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and SyncCache but they
> > also
> > > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name of the instance
> > to
> > > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the documentation I believe
> > for
> > > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and Hazelcast
> implements
> > > the
> > > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml configuration in
> > > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache names are provided
> > along
> > > > with
> > > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be setup where a list
> of
> > > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a configuration if
> > that
> > > > > would be more ideal.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <
> > saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions with
> > respect
> > > to
> > > > > > Ignite Integration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I had a question specific to integration and wanted to ask if
> these
> > > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for the micronaut-ignite
> > > > > > integration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within the given
> cache
> > > > name
> > > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a method
> invocation
> > > > should
> > > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation is never
> > skipped.
> > > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a method should
> > cause
> > > > the
> > > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev list, it great
> to
> > > > learn
> > > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Saikat
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the details over the next
> > few
> > > > > days
> > > > > > > and we can go from there.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the Ignite
> > namespace.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note to the
> > > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise, we need
> to
> > > > > approve
> > > > > > > > every email you send.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> here is the link:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've put
> > > together:
> > > > > > > >>
> > https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > >> Sent from:
> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
oh, so we probably don't need to work with multiple instances. This is what
I have in the current master branch. I believe I was originally trying to
set-up the configuration with the default ignite instance but found I
couldn't cover enough of the configuration. So what defaults are set for
IgniteConfiguration? some of those factory items can't be covered with how
micronaut sets up configurations. @ConfigurationProperty can only be
defined on a known factory, there are ways to have multiple factories and
label them optional but that easily gets overwhelming. In this situation
providing your own bean would probably be more ideal in this situation when
I think about it. I was worrying that I wouldn't be able to cover enough
of the configuration with
ignite: enabled: true thin-clients: default: address: -
"127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
thin-client-2:
address: - "127.0.0.1:10800" - "127.0.0.1:10801"
you can see it in the current snapshot documentation:
https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-ignite/snapshot/guide/
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 4:16 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
>
> I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and the current version
> of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> <
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteClientConfiguration.java
> >
> class,
> and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
>
> 1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to IgniteConfiguration (or, to
> avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration as it's done for the
> Mongo driver
> <
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/DefaultMongoConfiguration.html
> >).
> The rationale for this change is that the developers might need to
> start an embedded
> Ignite server node
> <
> https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/deployment-modes#embedded-deployment
> >.
> So, I would not limit the integration scope to the Ignite clients only.
> 2. Presently,
> io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
> supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I would replace the
> "path"
> parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
> org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do that, then the
> developers
> will be able to set any property of the IgniteConfiguration straight in
> the
> main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite Spring Boot
> Auto-Configuration
> <
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> >.
> Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
> 3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I would rework the
> Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking our Spring Boot
> integration for the thin client
> <
> https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration
> >
> as a reference. As I see, the current version of
> IgniteThinClientConfiguration
> <
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java
> >
> already
> adopts this approach. I would only rename "configuration" to "config",
> and
> remove the "transaction" field since you can pass the transactional
> settings via the YAML following the format below:
>
> ignite-thin-client:
> name:
> config:
> addresses: <IP_addresses>
> partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
> transactionConfiguration:
> defaultTxConcurrency:...
> defaultTxTimeout
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get wrapped into a
> > micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the relevant sections of code
> > that would handle each annotation along with the methods that get called
> > from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully this helps. The key is
> > specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can be changed if
> there
> > is a better way to represent the key. By default it uses this
> > DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
> >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> > ).
> >
> >
> > I also finished up this document on sunday:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> .
> > Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how this could be
> adjusted.
> >
> > Cacheable:
> >
> > For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the value is not
> present
> > in the cache.
> >
> > -> micronaut-cache:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> > -> ignite-cache:
> > get:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
> >
> > CachePut:
> >
> > For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null else it will
> issue a
> > put. I think there might be a mistake in my code because I use
> putIfAbsent
> > for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and write some
> additional
> > test cases to verify the behaviour.
> >
> > --> micronaut-cache:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> > -> ignite-cache:
> > put:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> > invalidate:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> >
> > CacheInvalidate:
> >
> > for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the key.
> >
> > --> micronaut-cache:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> > -> ignite-cache:
> > invalidate:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using @CachePut, @Cacheable
> > > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was trying to
> > understand
> > > when user use these annotation then what would be the underlying Ignite
> > > operation that will happen? and how those operations are performed?
> > >
> > > An example like when user call this below method then how the result of
> > > getValue is cached?
> > >
> > > @Cacheable
> > > int getValue(String name) {
> > > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Saikat
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this would need to be
> > > > implemented in ignite?
> > > >
> > > > The project at the moment is split into multiple modules.
> ignite-core,
> > > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have ignite-data but that
> > will
> > > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but the basic config is
> > > mostly
> > > > done. The plan is also to verify the API described in the wiki and
> make
> > > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm missing an
> > > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that would fit into this
> > > scheme.
> > > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm sure something
> > could
> > > be
> > > > arranged that would work.
> > > >
> > > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module that can be
> optionally
> > > > included in a micronaut project where this module also has a
> dependency
> > > on
> > > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are the two interfaces
> > that
> > > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to define the
> > implementation,
> > > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and SyncCache but they
> also
> > > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name of the instance
> to
> > > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the documentation I believe
> for
> > > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and Hazelcast implements
> > the
> > > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml configuration in
> > > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache names are provided
> along
> > > with
> > > > a configuration. Something similar can also be setup where a list of
> > > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a configuration if
> that
> > > > would be more ideal.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <
> saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > >
> > > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions with
> respect
> > to
> > > > > Ignite Integration.
> > > > >
> > > > > I had a question specific to integration and wanted to ask if these
> > > > > annotations also need to be implemented for the micronaut-ignite
> > > > > integration.
> > > > >
> > > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within the given cache
> > > name
> > > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a method invocation
> > > should
> > > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation is never
> skipped.
> > > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a method should
> cause
> > > the
> > > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev list, it great to
> > > learn
> > > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Saikat
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the details over the next
> few
> > > > days
> > > > > > and we can go from there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the Ignite
> namespace.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note to the
> > > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise, we need to
> > > > approve
> > > > > > > every email you send.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <
> > > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> here is the link:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've put
> > together:
> > > > > > >>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> Sent from:
> > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Michael, thanks for filling out the wiki page.
I'm looking at the Auto-Configuration wiki section and the current version
of the io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
<https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteClientConfiguration.java>
class,
and wonder if we can perform the following changes:
1. Rename the IgniteClientConfiguration to IgniteConfiguration (or, to
avoid ambiguity, even to DefaultIgniteConfiguration as it's done for the
Mongo driver
<https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-mongodb/latest/api/io/micronaut/configuration/mongo/reactive/DefaultMongoConfiguration.html>).
The rationale for this change is that the developers might need to
start an embedded
Ignite server node
<https://www.gridgain.com/docs/latest/installation-guide/deployment-modes#embedded-deployment>.
So, I would not limit the integration scope to the Ignite clients only.
2. Presently, io.micronaut.ignite.configuration.IgniteClientConfiguration
supports two parameters - the "name" and "path". I would replace the "path"
parameter with the "config" one that instantiates
org.apache.ignite.IgniteConfiguration. If we do that, then the developers
will be able to set any property of the IgniteConfiguration straight in the
main YAML file. See how it's done for the Ignite Spring Boot
Auto-Configuration
<https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-ignite-up-via-spring-boot-configuration>.
Guess, we can do the same with Micronaut.
3. If the previous modification is feasible, then I would rework the
Ignite thin client configuration similarly, taking our Spring Boot
integration for the thin client
<https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#set-thin-client-up-via-spring-boot-configuration>
as a reference. As I see, the current version of
IgniteThinClientConfiguration
<https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/blob/master/ignite-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/configuration/IgniteThinClientConfiguration.java>
already
adopts this approach. I would only rename "configuration" to "config", and
remove the "transaction" field since you can pass the transactional
settings via the YAML following the format below:
ignite-thin-client:
name:
config:
addresses: <IP_addresses>
partitionAwarenessEnabled: true
transactionConfiguration:
defaultTxConcurrency:...
defaultTxTimeout
-
Denis
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get wrapped into a
> micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the relevant sections of code
> that would handle each annotation along with the methods that get called
> from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully this helps. The key is
> specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can be changed if there
> is a better way to represent the key. By default it uses this
> DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java
> ).
>
>
> I also finished up this document on sunday:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration.
> Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how this could be adjusted.
>
> Cacheable:
>
> For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the value is not present
> in the cache.
>
> -> micronaut-cache:
>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
> -> ignite-cache:
> get:
>
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
>
> CachePut:
>
> For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null else it will issue a
> put. I think there might be a mistake in my code because I use putIfAbsent
> for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and write some additional
> test cases to verify the behaviour.
>
> --> micronaut-cache:
>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
> -> ignite-cache:
> put:
>
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
> invalidate:
>
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>
> CacheInvalidate:
>
> for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the key.
>
> --> micronaut-cache:
>
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
> -> ignite-cache:
> invalidate:
>
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > In the Example Cacheable Object you are using @CachePut, @Cacheable
> > annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was trying to
> understand
> > when user use these annotation then what would be the underlying Ignite
> > operation that will happen? and how those operations are performed?
> >
> > An example like when user call this below method then how the result of
> > getValue is cached?
> >
> > @Cacheable
> > int getValue(String name) {
> > return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
> > }
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Saikat
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > when you mean these annotations do you mean this would need to be
> > > implemented in ignite?
> > >
> > > The project at the moment is split into multiple modules. ignite-core,
> > > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have ignite-data but that
> will
> > > take a bit of work to get working correctly but the basic config is
> > mostly
> > > done. The plan is also to verify the API described in the wiki and make
> > > sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm missing an
> > > implementation for the thin-cache and how that would fit into this
> > scheme.
> > > I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm sure something
> could
> > be
> > > arranged that would work.
> > >
> > > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module that can be optionally
> > > included in a micronaut project where this module also has a dependency
> > on
> > > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are the two interfaces
> that
> > > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to define the
> implementation,
> > > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and SyncCache but they also
> > > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name of the instance to
> > > refer to the name of the cache used. In the documentation I believe for
> > > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and Hazelcast implements
> the
> > > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml configuration in
> > > micronaut documentation where a list of cache names are provided along
> > with
> > > a configuration. Something similar can also be setup where a list of
> > > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a configuration if that
> > > would be more ideal.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <saikat.maitra@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Michael,
> > > >
> > > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> > > >
> > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions with respect
> to
> > > > Ignite Integration.
> > > >
> > > > I had a question specific to integration and wanted to ask if these
> > > > annotations also need to be implemented for the micronaut-ignite
> > > > integration.
> > > >
> > > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within the given cache
> > name
> > > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a method invocation
> > should
> > > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation is never skipped.
> > > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a method should cause
> > the
> > > > invalidation of one or many caches.
> > > >
> > > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev list, it great to
> > learn
> > > > about micronaut-ignite module.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Saikat
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <mpollind@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the details over the next few
> > > days
> > > > > and we can go from there.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the Ignite namespace.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note to the
> > > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise, we need to
> > > approve
> > > > > > every email you send.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <
> > mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> here is the link:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've put
> together:
> > > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Sent from:
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
oh, that makes more sense. so those methods get wrapped into a
micronaut-aop intercept. Below I've listed the relevant sections of code
that would handle each annotation along with the methods that get called
from the ignite branch I'm working from. Hopefully this helps. The key is
specified from the CacheConfig annotation but this can be changed if there
is a better way to represent the key. By default it uses this
DefaultCacheKeyGenerator(
https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/DefaultCacheKeyGenerator.java).
I also finished up this document on sunday:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration.
Any suggestions with what I could expand on and how this could be adjusted.
Cacheable:
For Cacheable it will run a get and issue a put if the value is not present
in the cache.
-> micronaut-cache:
https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L163-L170
-> ignite-cache:
get:
https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L60-L70
CachePut:
For cache put it will invalidate if the return is null else it will issue a
put. I think there might be a mistake in my code because I use putIfAbsent
for both cases. I need to investigate that closer and write some additional
test cases to verify the behaviour.
--> micronaut-cache:
https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L510-L525
-> ignite-cache:
put:
https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L83-L88
invalidate:
https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
CacheInvalidate:
for cache invalidation it will just be removed by the key.
--> micronaut-cache:
https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-cache/blob/master/cache-core/src/main/java/io/micronaut/cache/interceptor/CacheInterceptor.java#L590-L596
-> ignite-cache:
invalidate:
https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/blob/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite/IgniteSyncCache.java#L91-L95
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 5:23 PM Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> In the Example Cacheable Object you are using @CachePut, @Cacheable
> annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was trying to understand
> when user use these annotation then what would be the underlying Ignite
> operation that will happen? and how those operations are performed?
>
> An example like when user call this below method then how the result of
> getValue is cached?
>
> @Cacheable
> int getValue(String name) {
> return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
> }
>
>
> Regards,
> Saikat
>
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > when you mean these annotations do you mean this would need to be
> > implemented in ignite?
> >
> > The project at the moment is split into multiple modules. ignite-core,
> > ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have ignite-data but that will
> > take a bit of work to get working correctly but the basic config is
> mostly
> > done. The plan is also to verify the API described in the wiki and make
> > sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm missing an
> > implementation for the thin-cache and how that would fit into this
> scheme.
> > I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm sure something could
> be
> > arranged that would work.
> >
> > For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module that can be optionally
> > included in a micronaut project where this module also has a dependency
> on
> > micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are the two interfaces that
> > micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to define the implementation,
> > you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and SyncCache but they also
> > define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name of the instance to
> > refer to the name of the cache used. In the documentation I believe for
> > Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and Hazelcast implements the
> > DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml configuration in
> > micronaut documentation where a list of cache names are provided along
> with
> > a configuration. Something similar can also be setup where a list of
> > implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a configuration if that
> > would be more ideal.
> >
> >
> >
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> > >
> > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions with respect to
> > > Ignite Integration.
> > >
> > > I had a question specific to integration and wanted to ask if these
> > > annotations also need to be implemented for the micronaut-ignite
> > > integration.
> > >
> > > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within the given cache
> name
> > > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a method invocation
> should
> > > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation is never skipped.
> > > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a method should cause
> the
> > > invalidation of one or many caches.
> > >
> > > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev list, it great to
> learn
> > > about micronaut-ignite module.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Saikat
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > > >
> > > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the details over the next few
> > days
> > > > and we can go from there.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the Ignite namespace.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note to the
> > > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise, we need to
> > approve
> > > > > every email you send.
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <
> mpollind@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> here is the link:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've put together:
> > > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Michael,
In the Example Cacheable Object you are using @CachePut, @Cacheable
annotations and @CacheInvalidate annotations and I was trying to understand
when user use these annotation then what would be the underlying Ignite
operation that will happen? and how those operations are performed?
An example like when user call this below method then how the result of
getValue is cached?
@Cacheable
int getValue(String name) {
return counters.computeIfAbsent(name, { 0 })
}
Regards,
Saikat
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:21 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> when you mean these annotations do you mean this would need to be
> implemented in ignite?
>
> The project at the moment is split into multiple modules. ignite-core,
> ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have ignite-data but that will
> take a bit of work to get working correctly but the basic config is mostly
> done. The plan is also to verify the API described in the wiki and make
> sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm missing an
> implementation for the thin-cache and how that would fit into this scheme.
> I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm sure something could be
> arranged that would work.
>
> For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module that can be optionally
> included in a micronaut project where this module also has a dependency on
> micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are the two interfaces that
> micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to define the implementation,
> you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and SyncCache but they also
> define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name of the instance to
> refer to the name of the cache used. In the documentation I believe for
> Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and Hazelcast implements the
> DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml configuration in
> micronaut documentation where a list of cache names are provided along with
> a configuration. Something similar can also be setup where a list of
> implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a configuration if that
> would be more ideal.
>
>
> https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
>
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
> >
> > Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions with respect to
> > Ignite Integration.
> >
> > I had a question specific to integration and wanted to ask if these
> > annotations also need to be implemented for the micronaut-ignite
> > integration.
> >
> > @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within the given cache name
> > @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a method invocation should
> > be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation is never skipped.
> > @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a method should cause the
> > invalidation of one or many caches.
> >
> > Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev list, it great to learn
> > about micronaut-ignite module.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Saikat
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> > >
> > > I'll start trying to fill out some of the details over the next few
> days
> > > and we can go from there.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the Ignite namespace.
> > > >
> > > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note to the
> > > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise, we need to
> approve
> > > > every email you send.
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> here is the link:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
> > > >>
> > > >> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've put together:
> > > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
when you mean these annotations do you mean this would need to be
implemented in ignite?
The project at the moment is split into multiple modules. ignite-core,
ignite-cache, etc ... The plan was to also have ignite-data but that will
take a bit of work to get working correctly but the basic config is mostly
done. The plan is also to verify the API described in the wiki and make
sure this is what would work best. At the moment I'm missing an
implementation for the thin-cache and how that would fit into this scheme.
I've removed it due to the added complexity but I'm sure something could be
arranged that would work.
For Ignite-cache, I have it as a separate module that can be optionally
included in a micronaut project where this module also has a dependency on
micronaut-cache. The AsyncCache and SyncCache are the two interfaces that
micronaut-cache defines. There are two ways to define the implementation,
you can either provide beans for AsyncCache and SyncCache but they also
define a DynamicCacheManager that will use the name of the instance to
refer to the name of the cache used. In the documentation I believe for
Teracotta you give a list of caches you want and Hazelcast implements the
DynamicCacheManager. you can see that in the yaml configuration in
micronaut documentation where a list of cache names are provided along with
a configuration. Something similar can also be setup where a list of
implementations from the yaml can be mapped to a configuration if that
would be more ideal.
https://github.com/pollend/micronaut-ignite/tree/feature/rework/ignite-cache/src/main/java/io/micronaut/ignite
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
>
> Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions with respect to
> Ignite Integration.
>
> I had a question specific to integration and wanted to ask if these
> annotations also need to be implemented for the micronaut-ignite
> integration.
>
> @Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within the given cache name
> @CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a method invocation should
> be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation is never skipped.
> @CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a method should cause the
> invalidation of one or many caches.
>
> Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev list, it great to learn
> about micronaut-ignite module.
>
> Regards,
> Saikat
>
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
> >
> > I'll start trying to fill out some of the details over the next few days
> > and we can go from there.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the Ignite namespace.
> > >
> > > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note to the
> > > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise, we need to approve
> > > every email you send.
> > >
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> here is the link:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
> > >>
> > >> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've put together:
> > >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Michael,
Welcome to the Ignite community!!!
Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions with respect to
Ignite Integration.
I had a question specific to integration and wanted to ask if these
annotations also need to be implemented for the micronaut-ignite
integration.
@Cacheable - Indicates a method is cacheable within the given cache name
@CachePut - Indicates that the return value of a method invocation should
be cached. Unlike @Cacheable the original operation is never skipped.
@CacheInvalidate - Indicates the invocation of a method should cause the
invalidation of one or many caches.
Denis - Thank you for sharing the details in dev list, it great to learn
about micronaut-ignite module.
Regards,
Saikat
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:35 AM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
>
> I'll start trying to fill out some of the details over the next few days
> and we can go from there.
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the Ignite namespace.
> >
> > Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note to the
> > dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise, we need to approve
> > every email you send.
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> here is the link:
> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
> >>
> >> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've put together:
> >> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
> >>
> >
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
Here is the page that i've stubbed out:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Micronaut+Integration
I'll start trying to fill out some of the details over the next few days
and we can go from there.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:47 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the Ignite namespace.
>
> Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note to the
> dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise, we need to approve
> every email you send.
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> here is the link:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
>>
>> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've put together:
>> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>>
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
You're in, now you can create wiki pages in the Ignite namespace.
Also, please subscribe to the list by sending a note to the
dev-subscribe@ignite.apache.org address. Otherwise, we need to approve
every email you send.
-
Denis
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:43 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> here is the link:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
>
> Here is the work in progress pull request that I've put together:
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
>
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>.
here is the link:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/users/viewuserprofile.action?username=mpollind
Here is the work in progress pull request that I've put together:
https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
Re: Micronaut/Ignite
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Michael,
What's your confluence id? For some reason, I can't add you using the email
address.
Agree, that it's the right move to split the pull-request. Btw, keep the
dev list in the copy, no need to exclude from the recipients' list.
-
Denis
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 1:10 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I created an account in confluence with mpollind@gmail.com.
>
> I also took some time yesterday to split my work just for the ignite-core
> and ignite-cache stuff:
> https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite/pull/33
>
> This should be more approachable.
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 9:44 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Michael, welcome to the community!
>>
>> Igniters, let me introduce you to Michael, who is working on the Micronaut
>> integration for Ignite
>> <https://github.com/micronaut-projects/micronaut-ignite>. Even though
>> the integration is hosted in the Micronaut repository, I thought it's in
>> our interest to help Michael with the APIs design and support with other
>> Ignite-specific challenges he might hit on the road. @Saikat Maitra, @Ilya
>> Kasnacheev, @Valentin Kulichenko, I would appreciate if you folks get
>> involved, at least, in the API design phase.
>>
>> Michael, answering your questions
>>
>> So I already have 2 implemented but I'm not really sure what you mean by
>>> autostart for number 1? so at the moment I have the thin-client omitted
>>> just for simplicity and I think it could just be added in afterwards. I'm
>>> not sure how important it is in the whole scheme of things since this is my
>>> first time really looking at ignite. we can start there and figure out
>>> those details.
>>
>>
>> Instead of the autostart, I was intended to say the autoconfigure
>> feature, which is a Spring Boot term
>> <https://apacheignite-mix.readme.io/docs/spring-boot#autoconfiguration-of-apache-ignite-servers-and-clients>.
>> Sorry for the confusion. Anyway, that's when Micronaut automatically starts
>> an Ignite client instance based on configuration settings. As you confirmed
>> below, the integration logic already does this.
>>
>> When we design new public APIs, we frequently take advantage of Ignite
>> Wiki by creating design documents that comprise an API interface with code
>> samples showing how a developer is supposed to use the API.
>> You tweak the APIs with code samples until those are settled. This
>> approach helps to assess the APIs from the end-user standpoint and avoid
>> common design mistakes before coding and releasing a feature for public
>> usage. Furthermore, such design pages are an excellent source for a
>> technical documentation that you create regardless. Check the "Key
>> Interfaces" and "Examples" sections of the tracing feature's design page
>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-48%3A+Tracing>.
>>
>> So, my suggestion to you would be as follows:
>>
>> - Create the Micronaut Integration page under the Design Documents
>> tree
>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Design+Documents>.
>> Sign up on the wiki and tell me your email/id. I'll grant you all the
>> required editing permissions.
>> - On that page, create a section for the autoconfigure feature by
>> listing all possible configuration parameters the user can pass in YAML
>> files and examples of how a client instance can be injected in application
>> logic. Guess, thin and thick clients will be configured differently.
>> - Another section should be related to the Micronaut Caching API.
>> Again, public Ignite-specific APIs we're adding to Micronaut and how the
>> user is supposed to use those.
>>
>> Once the page is ready, we'll start brainstorming on the APIs together
>> using this discussion thread.
>>
>> 3 is giving me some problems since the SQL generated does not match up.
>>> ignite rejected the query when I have auto generated fields in the DDL
>>> statement and I've also dropped the scheme from the SQL and used the scheme
>>> to resolve the target cache. I'm using SqlFieldsQuery to make the request
>>> but there seems to be a few query options:
>>
>>
>> If you'd like to carry on with this part of the integration, then I would
>> start a separate discussion on the dev list. Or just put it off for a bit
>> until we sort out the clients' configuration and Micronaut Caching APIs.
>>
>> -
>> Denis
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 1:16 PM Michael Pollind <mp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> Denis Magda
>>>
>>> So I already have 2 implemented but I'm not really sure what you mean by
>>> autostart for number 1? so at the moment I have the thin-client omitted
>>> just for simplicity and I think it could just be added in afterwards. I'm
>>> not sure how important it is in the whole scheme of things since this is my
>>> first time really looking at ignite. we can start there and figure out
>>> those details.
>>>
>>> here is the application.yml that i currently have for a basic
>>> configuration. I'm using the bean definitions from spring to do this:
>>>
>>> ignite:
>>> enabled: true
>>> clients:
>>> default:
>>> path: classpath:standard.cfg
>>>
>>>
>>> 3 is giving me some problems since the SQL generated does not match up.
>>> ignite rejected the query when I have auto generated fields in the DDL
>>> statement and I've also dropped the scheme from the SQL and used the scheme
>>> to resolve the target cache. I'm using SqlFieldsQuery to make the request
>>> but there seems to be a few query options:
>>>
>>> [image: image.png]
>>>
>>>
>>> @IgniteRepository(value = "default", schema = "mydb")
>>>> public interface UserRepository extends CrudRepository<User, Long> {
>>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> so I created an account on the apache ignite forum:
>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=user_profile
>>>
>>> I wouldn't mind starting a thread to start planning out the API.
>>>
>>> From,
>>> Michael Pollind
>>>
>>