Hi Vyacheslav, Still not clear enough for me. I do not see a reason to send another over a ring in case of successful execution. The only reason is an error on a node which require correction (re-deploy to other node, full service undeploy, etc). I think it makes sense to organize another call to discuss current architecture. Otherwise we may spend too much time on emails.
Vladimir. On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:57 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
