Pavel, could you please at least share your time frame wrt adding compute,
clustering and services features to the spec?
Thanks
Andrey
________________________________
From: Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@gridgain.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 11:15 PM
To: dev@ignite.apache.org
Subject: Re: Thin Client Protocol documentation
Andrey,
As I understand, you suggest to document every prospective feature right
now.
That would be (at least) compute, clustering, transactions, services,
messages, events, failover, data structures, metrics.
I don't think it makes sense to do that. Another problem is that it will
take weeks :)
But, of course, you are welcome to take the initiative.
Thanks,
Pavel
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Andrey Kornev <andrewkor...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Pavel,
>
> I have absolutely no doubts that support for all those features will be
> added eventually. And if so, wouldn't it be the right thing to do to
> document the operations and their semantics right now without
> necessarily implementing them? It should really help to ensure that the
> protocol can accommodate all those use cases before it gets released to the
> public.
>
> Thanks
> Andrey
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@gridgain.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 5, 2017 12:07 AM
> *Cc:* dev@ignite.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Thin Client Protocol documentation
>
> Andrey,
>
> All of this is to come :)
>
>
> Prachi,
>
> 1) There are no flags, see the doc
> 2) String is simply 4 byte length (n) + n bytes
> 3) Op codes have changed
>
> writeByteLittleEndian(1051, out); // Type code
> writeIntLittleEndian(20, out); // String length
> out.writeUTF("myNewCache"); // Cache name
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Prachi Garg <pg...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pavel,
> >
> > I am trying to use the OP_CACHE_CREATE_WITH_NAME operation, but can't get
> > it to work. Digging deeper into the source code, it seems like I have to
> > provide a flag, string length, and position, in addition to the type code
> > and the actual string. Is that correct?
> >
> > Here is the request I am sending to the server-
> >
> > DataOutputStream out = new DataOutputStream(socket.getOutputStream());
> >
> > // Message length
> > writeIntLittleEndian(24, out);
> >
> > // Op code = OP_CACHE_CREATE_WITH_NAME
> > writeShortLittleEndian(1051, out);
> >
> > // Request id
> > long reqId = 1;
> > writeLongLittleEndian(reqId, out);
> >
> > // String (cache name)
> > writeByteLittleEndian(9, out); // Type code
> > writeByteLittleEndian(0, out); // Flag
> > writeIntLittleEndian(20, out); // String length
> > writeIntLittleEndian(0, out); // Position
> > out.writeUTF("myNewCache"); // Cache name
> >
> > // Send request
> > out.flush();
> >
> > But I get the following error on the server side.
> >
> > [2017-12-04 17:27:39,421][ERROR][client-connector-#53][
> ClientListenerNioListener]
> > Failed to parse client request.
> > java.lang.StringIndexOutOfBoundsException: String index out of range:
> 2575
> > at java.lang.String.checkBounds(String.java:385)
> > at java.lang.String.<init>(String.java:462)
> > at org.apache.ignite.internal.binary.BinaryUtils.
> > doReadString(BinaryUtils.java:1314)
> > at org.apache.ignite.internal.binary.BinaryReaderExImpl.
> > readString(BinaryReaderExImpl.java:1055)
> > at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.platform.client.cache.
> > ClientCacheCreateWithNameRequest.<init>(ClientCacheCreateWithNameReque
> > st.java:43)
> > at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.platform.client.
> > ClientMessageParser.decode(ClientMessageParser.java:318)
> > at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.platform.client.
> > ClientMessageParser.decode(ClientMessageParser.java:220)
> > at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.odbc.ClientListenerNioListener.
> > onMessage(ClientListenerNioListener.java:119)
> > at org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.odbc.ClientListenerNioListener.
> > onMessage(ClientListenerNioListener.java:40)
> > at org.apache.ignite.internal.util.nio.GridNioFilterChain$
> > TailFilter.onMessageReceived(GridNioFilterChain.java:279)
> > at org.apache.ignite.internal.util.nio.GridNioFilterAdapter.
> > proceedMessageReceived(GridNioFilterAdapter.java:109)
> > at org.apache.ignite.internal.util.nio.GridNioAsyncNotifyFilter$3.
> > body(GridNioAsyncNotifyFilter.java:97)
> > at org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorker.run(
> > GridWorker.java:110)
> > at org.apache.ignite.internal.util.worker.GridWorkerPool$1.
> > run(GridWorkerPool.java:70)
> > at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(
> > ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142)
> > at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(
> > ThreadPoolExecutor.java:617)
> > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
> >
> > What am I missing here? Can you provide an example of how to send a
> > 'String' type request?
> >
> > -Prachi
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Andrey Kornev <andrewkor...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Pavel,
> >>
> >> Thanks! While we're at it, are there any plans to add cluster-related
> >> operations? For example, I think it'd be nice to allow the thin clients
> to
> >> obtain a current topology snapshot. This would make it possible the
> clients
> >> to send requests directly to the affinity host for colocated
> computation.
> >> To make it even more useful, all server responses could optionally
> include
> >> the topology version the operation has been executed against. This would
> >> effectively give us a kind out-of-band topology change notification
> >> mechanism. This way the clients can detect a topology change and refresh
> >> the topology snapshot next time they need to compute affinity.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Andrey
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>
> >> Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2017 9:23 AM
> >> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Thin Client Protocol documentation
> >>
> >> Hi Andrey,
> >>
> >> Compute and other APIs are certainly planned, cache is just a start.
> >> We intentionally limit the scope to actually release something in 2.4
> and
> >> not delay it further.
> >>
> >> Adding operations to existing protocol is relatively easy.
> >> Current focus is to make sure that the protocol itself is solid and
> >> future-proof.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Pavel
> >>
> >
> >
>
