Vyacheslav, First of all, thanks for archiving this milestone and rolling out these new capabilities.
Speaking of the topology change events [1], does the new architecture avoid a running service redeployment when a new node joins? For instance, let's say I have ServiceA running node1, then node2 joins and I don't want the service to be redeployed to any other node. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584#ServiceGridredesign.Phase1.Implementationdetails.-Topologychange -- Denis On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dmitriy, I published documentation in wiki: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=95654584 > > Thank you! > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 5:10 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi I think wiki is better than any attached docs. Could you please > create a > > page? > > > > ср, 7 нояб. 2018 г., 14:39 Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>: > > > > > I prepared a description of the implemented solution and attached it > > > to the issue [1]. > > > > > > This should help during a review. Should I post the document into wiki > or > > > IEP? > > > > > > I'd like to ask Ignite's experts review the solution [1] [2], please? > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607 > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434 > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters! Good news! > > > > > > > > Service Grid Redesign Phase 1 - is in Patch Available now. > > > > > > > > Nikolay Izhikov has reviewed implementation. > > > > > > > > However, we need additional review from other Ignite experts. > > > > > > > > Here is an umbrella ticket [1] and PR [2]. > > > > > > > > Could someone step in and do the review? > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9607 > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4434 > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 11:44 AM Denis Mekhanikov < > dmekhani...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Pavel, could you assist? > > > > > > > > > > Does it make sense for .Net to specify service class name instead > of > > > its > > > > > implementation? > > > > > > > > > > I think, it shouldn't be a problem. > > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018, 11:33 Vyacheslav Daradur < > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think that the replacement of serialized instance makes sense > to me > > > > > > for Java part. > > > > > > > > > > > > But how it should work for .NET client? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:07 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Nikita Amelchev < > > > nsamelc...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am working on task [1] that would replace serialized > service's > > > > > > instance > > > > > > > > by service's class name and properties map in > > > {ServiceConfiguration}. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The task describes that we should use > > > > > > > > {String className} + {Map<String, Object> properties} instead > > > {Service > > > > > > > > srvc}. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to clarify the following questions: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. What about public methods? > > > > > > > > I suggest to mark them as deprecated and use class name of > > > provided > > > > > > > > instance. > > > > > > > > Also to add deploying methods with new parameters: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Deprecated > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture<?> > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup > > > prj, > > > > > > > > String > > > > > > > > name, Service svc) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture<?> > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup > > > prj, > > > > > > > > String > > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map<String, Object> prop) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this makes sense, but I would like other committers to > > > confirm. > > > > > > > Perhaps Vladimir Ozerov should comment here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Is {Map<String, Object> properties} parameter mandatory > when > > > > > > deploying a > > > > > > > > service? > > > > > > > > Is it make sense to add deploying methods without it? For > > > example: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture<?> > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup > > > prj, > > > > > > > > String > > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public IgniteInternalFuture<?> > deployNodeSingleton(ClusterGroup > > > prj, > > > > > > > > String > > > > > > > > name, String srvcClsName, Map<String, Object> prop) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would always ask the user to pass the property map, but would > > > allow it > > > > > > to > > > > > > > be null. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > -- > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >
