A side note. Actually “Ignition” naming always confused me. I think about it as some fancy named API entry point for Ignite. Perhaps it is a good moment to revisit naming.
> On 8 Jul 2021, at 07:09, Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Pavel, > > I don't think we will need the pure embedded mode, but we still need to be > able to access the API from compute and services. That said, there are two > usages of the 'Ignite' API: > > 1. Remote, via the binary protocol. > 2. Local - needed for compute and services. (This is how it works now.) > > I believe that the API should be the same, and there should be a unified > access point. Ignition seems to be a good candidate for this. > > Ignition#start should eventually be removed from the public API. It is > currently there only because we don't have the thin client yet. > > -Val > >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 5:47 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Igniters, >> >> I have a few questions regarding server node startup and thin clients. >> >> State of things: >> - Server nodes will be started with 'ignite run' from CLI [1] >> - ignite-api module represents our public API >> - ignite-api has Ignition interface to start server nodes >> >> Questions: >> - What's the idea behind Ignition interface in the public API? Are we going >> to have an "embedded mode" where servers can be started from code? I >> thought this was not planned. >> - How are users supposed to retrieve an instance of the Ignition interface? >> - Are there any plans to start thin clients from Ignition interface, or >> should we have a separate way of doing this? >> >> >> [1] >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=158873958 >>
