Hi,

Regarding the name - a not-so-good name isn’t always a sufficient justification 
for renaming.
Public products such as Ignite have to also take into account convenience for 
existing users.
Even in 3.0 when we technically can break compatibility I would avoid breaking 
it just to
rename “ELB” to “Classic ELB”.

Also, I believe the official names Amazon uses for these technologies are ELB 
and ALB,
not “classic ELB” and “application ELB”.

Regarding the code - `extends TcpDiscoveryClassicElbIpFinder` doesn’t really 
solve it.
For example, now you have an unused loadBalancerName property in the 
TcpDiscoveryApplicationElbIpFinder.

I guess, to move this forward, let’s just add a new class, 
TcpDiscoveryAlbIpFinder.
It doesn’t have to extend the existing TcpDiscoveryElbIpFinder – maybe we could 
merge them, but let’s not be 
stuck on this any longer.
Also let’s not change the existing TcpDiscoveryElbIpFinder – no need to rename 
it or deprecate it. We can thing of the
two IpFinders as of just independent features.

Thanks,
Stan

From: uday kale
Sent: 9 октября 2018 г. 19:34
To: dev@ignite.apache.org
Subject: Re: Volunteer needed: AWS Elastic Load Balancer IP Findersimplemented

Hi Stanislav,

I have removed extended the TcpDiscoveryApplicationElbIpFinder from
TcpDiscoveryClassicElbIpFinder to limi the code duplication. Please share
your feedback.

Thanks,
Uday

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 1:12 AM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Uday,
>
> We should keep classes name as is within all minor releases (2.x). We can
> schedule rename only to 3.0. We need to keep both classes and methods
> naming as is to provide compilation guarantee. If someone used existing
> TcpDiscoveryElbIpFinder from 2.6 release than his or her code should
> compile and run well.
>
> I've updated checklist, thank you for pointing to this.
>
> So I suggest keeping existing naming of TcpDiscoveryElbIpFinder as it is
> part of API.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> вт, 2 окт. 2018 г. в 21:04, uday kale <udaygk...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Thanks for the review Stan.
> > I renamed the existing class TcpDiscoveryElbIpFinder since the name is
> not
> > clear regarding the actual load balancer being used. The names
> > TcpDiscoveryClassicElbIpFinder
> > and TcpDiscoveryApplicationElbIpFinder provide a clear distinction.
> > I deprecated the existing class because of review checklist [1] point 1.a
> > under checklist. It requires methods to be deprecated instead of being
> > renamed. I assumed this will extend to classes too.
> > Regarding the your suggestion for having the tests I agree. It will be
> > helpful to know whether TC can accept properties while initiating a run.
> >
> > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Review+Checklist
> >
> > Uday
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:58 PM Stanislav Lukyanov <
> stanlukya...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Also, it makes me nervous that we’re lacking any sort of functional
> tests
> > > for AWS-based IP finders (same for GCE, actually).
> > > I understand that it’s hard to include tests like that in regular TC
> runs
> > > because we’d have to include some sort of credentials.
> > > But let’s think of some sort of a middle ground.
> > >
> > > I’m thinking about a functional test suite in the ignite-aws module
> that
> > > would pick up a properties file with AWS credentials.
> > > It wouldn’t be included in any of the TC runs, but someone making
> changes
> > > to ignite-aws would be able to run it locally providing their own
> > > credentials.
> > > They’d then share the results of their testing together with the usual
> TC
> > > link.
> > >
> > > Stan
> > >
> > > From: Stanislav Lukyanov
> > > Sent: 2 октября 2018 г. 19:08
> > > To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Volunteer needed: AWS Elastic Load Balancer IP
> > > Findersimplemented
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I took a look at the code, and I believe the patch needs to be
> enhanced.
> > >
> > > The patch is about adding TcpDiscoveryApplicationElbIpFinder, but it
> also
> > > deprecates the existing TcpDiscoveryElbIpFinder
> > > and replaces it with its copy named TcpDiscoveryClassicElbIpFinder.
> > >
> > > I’d really prefer if the existing class were enhanced to support both
> > > classic ELB and Application ELB.
> > > If it can’t be done, let’s  use inheritance to reduce the copypaste.
> > > In any case, let’s avoid deprecating the existing class – I don’t think
> > > that changing the name is that important in this case.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Stan
> > >
> > > From: Denis Magda
> > > Sent: 26 сентября 2018 г. 18:52
> > > To: dev
> > > Subject: Re: Volunteer needed: AWS Elastic Load Balancer IP
> > > Findersimplemented
> > >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > Don't we have experts in our networking component? I do believe that's
> a
> > > small improvement that can be verified and merged quickly.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 8:50 AM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Igniters, Friendly reminder.
> > > >
> > > > Denis, could you advice how to proceed in this case? It seems feature
> > can
> > > > be useful, but committers are not involved in a review.
> > > >
> > > > Should we send a proposal with lazy consensus and automatically
> merge?
> > > Any
> > > > alternative ideas on how to proceed with issues stuck in the review
> > > process
> > > > are strongly appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > >
> > > > ср, 15 авг. 2018 г. в 19:38, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > > I took a look at the proposed contribution
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8617 and PR
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4076.
> > > > >
> > > > > I found this change reasonable and I can update code according to
> > code
> > > > > style.
> > > > >
> > > > > But I would ask someone from the community with experience with AWS
> > ELB
> > > > to
> > > > > join the review. It would also benefit us if someone could try to
> > run a
> > > > > cluster with AWS ELB IP Finder.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to