The full map is needed: 1) to propagate deployment results which could be different from locally calculated in case of any errors; 2) to transfer deployment errors across the cluster; 3) to undeploy exceeded the number of service instances if needed; 4) to get know other nodes that deployment process was finished, this need to avoid calling services which have not been deployed yet (or can't be deployed). We can't just store pending requests because of time to deploy one service instances which may be significant. On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:45 PM Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: > > Vyacheslav, > > I looked at the document and failed to find explanation why full maps are > needed. Could you point me to a place where it is explained? > I ask this because my impression from last discussion was that it is never > needed. Service status change is initiated by user action, then all nodes > perform respective action locally, then they reply to coordinator, then > coordinator reply to the client, no need a kind of "full" map over > discovery again. The only situation when another message over ring is > required, is when some node failed to execute local operation (for whatever > reason) and corrective action is required. > > Am I missing something? > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:50 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Denis, I suggested new names above in the thread. > > > > Please, look at PME document [1] is should be quiet actual to show the > > same flow. > > > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/%28Partition+Map%29+Exchange+-+under+the+hood > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:43 AM Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhani...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > > > > > > Actually, the service assignment is implemented in a way, > > > that allows every node calculate the assignment itself, so no information > > > needs to be shared. > > > The only data, that is sent between nodes is deployment results, > > > and I don't see an analogy with exchange here. > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г. в 11:16, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > > > > > > > Hi Vyacheslav, > > > > > > > > Could you please explain in what situation coordinator needs to collect > > > > service deployments info from all nodes and share it with the cluster? > > I > > > > cannot remember from our design discussion when it is needed. Global > > state > > > > normally shared through discovery and only on node join, In this case > > we > > > > use "DiscoveryDataBags", not separate messages. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:11 AM Vyacheslav Daradur < > > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think request-response is not suitable terms. > > > > > > > > > > Nodes send to coordinator maps of actual service deployments which > > > > > contains what count of instances of each service node hosts locally. > > > > > > > > > > Coordinator sends to the cluster the full map of deployments across > > the > > > > > cluster. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:04 AM Vladimir Ozerov < > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not know what is correct term :-) What I said is that > > "exchange" > > > > is > > > > > > counter intuitive here. There is no "exchange", instead nodes send > > > > > > information to coordinator that they finished some operation. E.g. > > we > > > > do > > > > > > the same for schema changes (index creation), and as Denis > > suggested, > > > > > > Request-Response is correct suffixes here. Message name should > > explain > > > > > what > > > > > > really happened, instead of describing things which are somewhat > > > > similar > > > > > in > > > > > > internal flow. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 10:49 AM Nikolay Izhikov < > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vladimir. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is correct term? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 21 нояб. 2018 г., 10:29 Vladimir Ozerov voze...@gridgain.com > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree. Service deployment has nothing to do with PME. We > > should not > > > > > use > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > same term for different things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 17:19, Denis Mekhanikov < > > > > > dmekhani...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm in process of reviewing your changes. Sorry for taking so > > > > long. > > > > > > > > > I posted the first portion of review comments yesterday. > > > > > > > > > I'd like to finish looking through the code. I'll post more > > > > > comments > > > > > > > > later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see, that you called things analogously to partition map > > > > > exchange. > > > > > > > > > I realize, that there is an analogy in used procedures, but I > > > > don't > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > like the idea to use the same names for everything. > > > > > > > > > The partition map exchange is called this way because it > > involves > > > > > an > > > > > > > > actual > > > > > > > > > exchange of information. > > > > > > > > > All nodes need to tell each other, which partitions they > > have, > > > > and > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > their states are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no exchange in case of service deployment, so I > > would > > > > > skip the > > > > > > > > > "exchange" part. > > > > > > > > > And *single message ->* *full message* look more like > > *request -> > > > > > > > > response* > > > > > > > > > in case of services. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suppose we abandon the PME procedure and move to something > > else. > > > > > > > > > Then *ServiceDeploymentExchange* name won't make sense. > > > > > > > > > And I don't want to be in a situation, when I say to my > > > > colleague a > > > > > > > word > > > > > > > > > "exchange", > > > > > > > > > and get "which one?" in return. > > > > > > > > > So, I'm for the meaningful names rather than analogous to > > > > something > > > > > > > else. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г. в 12:09, Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > > > daradu...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > >
-- Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
