Denis, Yakov have you had a chance to review the solution? Igniters, we need to define a list of reviewers, otherwise no end in sign.
I'm ready to continue work on the Service Grid, including new features like hot-redeployment and versioning, also, I have ideas about new tools for monitoring and management which will be useful for our end-users. But for continuing work we need to overcome this first phase. On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:09 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Denis, Yakov, feel free to contact me directly in case of questions. Thanks! > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhani...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Guys, > > > > I'd like to take a look at the changes before they are merged. > > I'll do my best to finish the review before the end of the upcoming week. > > > > Thanks! > > Denis > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 14:25, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > > > Hello, Vladimir. > > > > > > I'm agree with you. > > > > > > Can we write the list of reviewers for this feature? > > > Without a date or similar. > > > Just a list of experts who should review this feature. > > > > > > В Сб, 10/11/2018 в 14:01 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет: > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > This is very huge thing with complex algorithms behind. We should not > > > merge > > > > it to the product unless several additional thorough reviews are ready, > > > > irrespectively of how long will it take. We are about quality, not > > > > speed. > > > > > > > > сб, 10 нояб. 2018 г. в 1:30, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > > > > > > > > > > What are the cases when the service can be redeployed? Affinity, > > > failure, > > > > > etc., right. It would be good to list all the cases on the wiki and > > > then > > > > > our tech writers will get everything documented. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Denis, > > > > > > > > > > > > Services reassignment process takes into account previous > > > > > > assignments > > > > > > to avoid redundant redeployments. > > > > > > So, in the described case, ServiceA won't be moved from node1 to > > > node2. > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. -- Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
