Hi Ivan,

Ignition IS the entry point to Ignite, so I'm not sure I got your point :)
Where is the contradiction?

Either way, please feel free to give your suggestions for an alternative
name if you have any.

-Val

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:56 PM Ivan Pavlukhina <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >>
>

Reply via email to