Yakov,
I'm talking only about user messages and public API. What is the purpose of
the timeout in this case?
I'm just trying to properly understand the semantics and at least fix the
JavaDoc as it seems to be completely wrong now.
-Val
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> wrote:
> Not sure what we are trying to achieve here. Unordered messages are simply
> ignored if there is no listener. We always expect unordered listeners to be
> installed before at least for internal messages, but this is not the case
> for some ordered messages, i.e. task session requests.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2017-01-12 0:03 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Yakov,
> >
> > So you confirm that my understanding is correct and JavaDoc is wrong,
> > right?
> >
> > As for 'no listener' scenario, that's a good point, but it should be
> > applicable to unordered messages as well then. The most confusing part
> here
> > is that we have timeout only for unordered messages while there is
> nothing
> > specific about them in terms of delivery.
> >
> > How about we two methods, with and without timeout, for both ordered and
> > unordered messages? Like this:
> >
> > void send(@Nullable Object topic, Object msg);
> > void send(@Nullable Object topic, Object msg, long timeout); // New
> method.
> > void sendOrdered(@Nullable Object topic, Object msg); // New method.
> > void sendOrdered(@Nullable Object topic, Object msg, long timeout);
> >
> > This change will make API consistent and will not break compatibility.
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If you send ordered messages to a node and listener on receiving side
> has
> > > not yet been added then timeout is still sufficient to clean up
> buffered
> > > messages.
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> > > 2017-01-10 23:36 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Yakov,
> > > >
> > > > I was actually asking about the public API for messaging
> > > > (IgniteMessaging#sendOrdered
> > > > method). Here is the JavaDoc:
> > > >
> > > > * The {@code timeout} parameter specifies how long an out-of-order
> > > message
> > > > will stay in a queue,
> > > > * waiting for messages that are ordered ahead of it to arrive. If
> > > timeout
> > > > expires, then all ordered
> > > > * messages that have not arrived before this message will be
> skipped.
> > > When
> > > > (and if) expired messages
> > > > * actually do arrive, they will be ignored.
> > > >
> > > > I remember that we indeed had this scenario possible a while ago, but
> > > then
> > > > implementation of ordered messaging was reworked and 'out-of-order
> > > message'
> > > > can't happen anymore. Is this correct? If so, I think the timeout
> > should
> > > be
> > > > removed from the API.
> > > >
> > > > -Val
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> yzhda...@gridgain.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Val, timeout still makes sense for task sessions. It is possible
> that
> > > all
> > > > > jobs mapped to node have been completed, but node still receives
> > > > > attributes. Attributes are sent in ordered messages. It may happen
> so
> > > > that
> > > > > node may start processing jobs for that task again and this way all
> > the
> > > > > attributes will be available. If task timeout elapses then messages
> > get
> > > > > cleared. Please let me know if you still have questions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > --
> > > > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
> > > > > *GridGain Systems*
> > > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-01-06 1:02 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyone knows what is the purpose of the timeout for
> > > > > > IgniteMessaging#sendOrdered method?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > void sendOrdered(@Nullable Object topic, Object msg, long
> timeout);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems to me that in current implementation messages are always
> > > > ordered
> > > > > > on communication level. I.e. if you send messages 1, 2 and 3,
> there
> > > is
> > > > no
> > > > > > way to receive 3 before 2. The only difference between ordered
> and
> > > > > > unordered messages is that ordered are processed one after
> another
> > > in a
> > > > > > single thread, while unordered can be processed in parallel.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having said that, timeout for ordered messages doesn't make much
> > > sense
> > > > to
> > > > > > me. Is there a scenario that I'm missing?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Val
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
