On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Can we just fix the exception > > message to clearly state that client mode requires all explicit > > configuration for such and such functionality? > > I don’t like this. It will require me as a user: > > * have a separate configuration for clients ALL the times. > * initialize the memory bean explicitly which looks like a hack and > workaround > > <property name="memoryConfiguration"> > <bean class="org.apache.ignite.configuration.MemoryConfiguration"> > </bean> > </property> > > Denis, Why would you even have a use case for a persistence configuration on the client side? What happened in your case was a mistake and you should have received a proper exception. I am simply suggesting that in the odd case that someone does need it, we provide proper error message explaining exactly what needs to be done. Why not? > > On May 26, 2017, at 11:02 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > I don't like ignoring any configuration, but I do agree that enabling > > persistence on the client side seems odd. Can we just fix the exception > > message to clearly state that client mode requires all explicit > > configuration for such and such functionality? > > > > D. > > > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Sergey Chugunov < > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com > >> wrote: > > > >> Denis, > >> > >> Thanks for quick reply, > >> > >> I made a change and tested it with your example, everything looks fine. > >> > >> Pull request is open and available at [1] > >> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2016 > >> > >> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>>> I would suggest on the first iteration to simply ignore persistence > >>>> configuration on client nodes. > >>>> If client node finds persistence configuration on startup it will > >>> printout > >>>> warning message to log and proceed without persistence. > >>> > >>> +1 for this. Otherwise, it looks like a dirty hack when I need to add > an > >>> empty MemoryConfiguration to a client config file. Plus, it requires us > >> to > >>> create different configuration files for servers and clients which has > to > >>> be optional by default. > >>> > >>> — > >>> Denis > >>> > >>>> On May 26, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Sergey Chugunov < > >> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Moreover, enabling persistence on client node is very risky and may > >> lead > >>> to > >>>> many tricky cases. > >>>> > >>>> I would suggest on the first iteration to simply ignore persistence > >>>> configuration on client nodes. > >>>> If client node finds persistence configuration on startup it will > >>> printout > >>>> warning message to log and proceed without persistence. > >>>> > >>>> Supporting persistence on client nodes definitely requires more > >>> thoughtful > >>>> discussion and may be added in the future. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Sergey. > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Sergey Chugunov < > >>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Denis, > >>>>> > >>>>> I see from example that you're trying to start a client node with > >>>>> persistence configuration specified and you're saying that Ignite > must > >>>>> provide default MemoryConfiguration. > >>>>> > >>>>> But that contradicts with decision we all agreed on in the > >>> discussion[1]: > >>>>> if user wants to do something unusual on client nodes like storing > >> cache > >>>>> partitions (or in this case persisting stuff) he/she *must *provide > >> all > >>>>> necessary configuration explicitly. > >>>>> > >>>>> Server node with the same persistence configuration (and without > >>> explicit > >>>>> memory configuration) starts just fine. > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble. > >>>>> com/Question-local-cache-on-client-nodes-tt15950.html > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Sergey. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Sergey, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The issue vanishes as soon as I add the following to the > >> configuration: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <property name="memoryConfiguration"> > >>>>>> <bean class="org.apache.ignite.configuration. > >> MemoryConfiguration"> > >>>>>> </bean> > >>>>>> </property> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My point is that we just need to create a MemoryConfiguration > >>> implicitly > >>>>>> if it’s not defined (no any warnings or extra messages). It’s a > >>>>>> responsibility of our platform to generate a default configuration > if > >>> it’s > >>>>>> not set explicitly. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> — > >>>>>> Denis > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On May 26, 2017, at 8:46 AM, Sergey Chugunov < > >>> sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Denis, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What is the expected behavior in that case? Bug doesn't suggest > any. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> From my point of view it would be better to throw an exception on > >>>>>> startup > >>>>>>> with meaningful message than to silently create a default > >>>>>>> MemoryConfiguration under the cover. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> Sergey. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Igniters, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I’ve just added the first Persistent Store example to the branch > >> that > >>>>>>>> fosters the donation: > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-5267/ > >>>>>>>> examples/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/examples/persistentstore > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> However, the example fails with an NPE if a MemoryConfiguration is > >>> not > >>>>>>>> defined explicitly: > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5295 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Please those who are involved in the store development fix the > >> issue > >>> by > >>>>>>>> the end of tomorrow. I want to complete with the technical > >>>>>> documentation > >>>>>>>> referring to a workable example. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> — > >>>>>>>> Denis > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >
