Pavel, i read whole thread, show me the reason why this functionality need to
be external ?
>
>
>Health checks are the primary use case. See linked user list thread.
>
>On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 12:26 PM Zhenya Stanilovsky
>< arzamas...@mail.ru.invalid > wrote:
>
>>
>> Whats the usage of such API ? Igor can you clarify please ?
>>
>> >Personally I believe that public API still can be helpful, as it gives
>> user
>> >an ability to check connection in the specific point in time, even if
>> >automatic
>> >ping is implemented (which is more complex and hard-to-maintain feature
>> >by the way).
>> >
>> >Not sure there should be "ping" in API though, maybe something more like
>> >client.checkConnection();
>> >
>> >Best Regards,
>> >Igor
>> >
>> >
>> >On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:37 AM Alex Plehanov < plehanov.a...@gmail.com
>> >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello guys,
>> >>
>> >> We've already raised the question about ping requests here [1].
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure about public API, but at least we can have auto-ping as an
>> >> internal mechanism. This will be helpful if the client doesn't send any
>> new
>> >> requests but only waits for server-side notifications (for example, if
>> the
>> >> client subscribed to CQ events). The client can't detect a connection
>> lost
>> >> until sending something to the server. Using periodic ping requests this
>> >> problem can be solved.
>> >>
>> >> So, +1 to add ping to the protocol, +0 to expose it to public API.
>> >>
>> >> [1]
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-44-Thin-Client-Discovery-tp47129p47318.html
>> >>
>> >> пн, 14 сент. 2020 г. в 10:32, Pavel Tupitsyn < ptupit...@apache.org >:
>> >>
>> >> > Nikolay,
>> >> >
>> >> > See the discussion on the user list:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. It is not immediately obvious which APIs perform server calls and
>> >> which
>> >> > don't.
>> >> > 2. It is not clear which APIs can cause heavy resource usage on the
>> >> server
>> >> > side.
>> >> > We don't want to stress servers by pinging them.
>> >> > cache.size() is an example - it is tempting to use and seems to be
>> >> > simple, but actually queries every server node in the cluster.
>> >> >
>> >> > > dedicated `ping` operation makes our API heavier
>> >> > The operation is so trivial that I would not worry about increased
>> >> > complexity or future maintenance.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:17 AM Nikolay Izhikov <
>> nizhi...@apache.org >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Hello, Igor.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On the other hand, dedicated `ping` operation makes our API heavier
>> >> > > without adding new feature -
>> >> > > We can do the same with the other part of the API.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Moreover, response to the ping doesn’t mean that SQL or cache query
>> can
>> >> > be
>> >> > > served.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > 14 сент. 2020 г., в 10:08, Igor Sapego < isap...@apache.org >
>> >> > написал(а):
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Николай,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > It looks a little bit hacky to me. I believe SQL drivers usually
>> use
>> >> > that
>> >> > > > approach
>> >> > > > as a workaround because there is no other common way to do that.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Sure we can recommend users to use cache.size() or anything other
>> >> > > > similar way
>> >> > > > to ensure the connection is alive, but it still looks like a
>> >> workaround
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > > me.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Best Regards,
>> >> > > > Igor
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:16 PM Николай Ижиков <
>> nizhi...@apache.org
>> >> >
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> Hello, Pavel.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> SQL drivers usually use “SELECT 1” query to ensure connection is
>> >> > alive.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Can we use similar approach?
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Отправлено с iPhone
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>> 13 сент. 2020 г., в 13:26, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> ptupit...@apache.org >
>> >> > > >> написал(а):
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> Igniters,
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> There is a feature request for a thin client Ping operation on
>> the
>> >> > user
>> >> > > >>> list [1].
>> >> > > >>> I think that is a good idea - IgniteClient.ping() will be a
>> >> valuable
>> >> > > >>> addition.
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> Any objections?
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> [1]
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Feature-request-method-to-test-active-connection-in-Ignite-thin-client-td33985.html
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
