> why thin client should be in core module It will be in a separate module (ignite-client). I was talking about "core library" as a primary set of modules that we ship. Integrations with 3rd party libraries and frameworks can be shipped as extensions.
Anyway, let's postpone the discussion of Rx and Kotlin. The main goal right now is to implement the most basic Java thin client. CompletableFuture is the primary way to deliver async APIs in Ignite 3.0, other things can be added later. On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 3:37 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think we need an explicit reactive API in the core library. > > Have you ever thought about why thin client should be in core module? Why > we do the same thing as we did in ignite 2.x? In the days of cloud native > we still think about large uber-jar with everything? > > > Same story with Kotlin, it works with CompletableFuture. > Users don't want to code by theyselves, they want to use ready and complete > clients. Please, don't underestimate kotlin, kotlin coroutines and reactive > streams. They are all the first class citizens in spring 5 for 3 years > > пт, 9 июл. 2021 г., 14:43 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > > You forget about reactive api > > > > I don't think we need an explicit reactive API in the core library. > > Observable.fromFuture bridges async to Rx easily: > > > > Observable.fromFuture(client.putAsync(k, v)).flatMap(...) > > > > Same story with Kotlin, it works with CompletableFuture. > > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 1:31 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > You forget about reactive api :) > > > > > > And whats a problem with discocerability? > > > > > > var syncApi = client.sync(); > > > syncApi.put(k, v); > > > > > > var rxApi = client.reactive(); > > > rxApi.put(k,v).flatMap(res -> ....); > > > > > > And sync, async and reactive is not enough, it is good idea to support > > > kotlin coroutines also :) > > > > > > пт, 9 июл. 2021 г., 13:26 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > Ivan D., > > > > > > > > > container of properties > > > > > > > > What is a container of properties? > > > > As a user, I want a simple way to start a client and perform > > operations. > > > > > > > > I don't want anything confusing and complicated like Netty Bootstrap. > > > There > > > > might be a reason for Netty to be this way - it is a low-level > library. > > > But > > > > Ignite is not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate facades for sync, async > > > > > > > > Strongly disagree with this idea. It hurts API discoverability. > > > > As a user, in my IDE I type "igniteTable.get" and see a list of > > > suggestions > > > > like get, getAsync, getAndPut, getAndPutAsync. > > > > I don't want to have a separate interface and a separate variable to > > deal > > > > with sync and async methods. > > > > > > > > Not sure what's the problem with documentation - can you elaborate > > > please? > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 12:51 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Pavel, actually I suggests to separate container of > properties(client > > > in > > > > > lettuce) and actual connection or connections (stateful connection > in > > > > > lettuce). Actual connection initialization could be sync or async, > it > > > > > doesn't matter. It can be Ignition#startClient or > > > > > Ignition#startClientAsync, but I'd prefer lettuce approach > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it would be great to have separate facades for sync, async > and > > > > > reactive api. Mixing all of them in one interface is a > documentation > > > > > nightmare. > > > > > > > > > > пт, 9 июл. 2021 г., 11:55 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan P., Ivan D., > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it makes sense to separate IgniteConnection and > > > > > IgniteClient > > > > > > like Lettuce does, > > > > > > because IgniteClient will maintain connections to multiple server > > > nodes > > > > > > automatically, > > > > > > and the number of connections can grow and shrink dynamically. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is required to support dynamic clusters together with > > partition > > > > > > awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not to make async variant of connection > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite API will (eventually) have both sync and async variants of > > > every > > > > > > method, where applicable, > > > > > > including the method that connects the client to the cluster. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 9:55 AM Ivan Pavlukhin < > vololo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignition IS the entry point to Ignite, so I'm not sure I got > > your > > > > > point > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > Either way, please feel free to give your suggestions for an > > > > > > alternative > > > > > > > name if you have any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, it is not only about naming but it is also about code > > > > > > > organization. Ivan D. already referenced to alternative API > > styles > > > (I > > > > > > > suppose [1] describes the idea). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My main points are: > > > > > > > 1. Ignite 3 is a great opportunity to make things better. > > > > > > > 2. Using (or reusing) confusing names and entities should be > > > avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another rather straightforward startup/bootstrap approach is > used > > > in > > > > > > > Netty [2]. For Ignite I would spell it like > > IgniteServer.Bootstrap > > > > and > > > > > > > IgniteClient.Bootstrap. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I suppose that thin client API is more important because > > much > > > > > > > more users will use it. I hope that a lot of Community members > > will > > > > > > > share their ideas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.baeldung.com/java-redis-lettuce > > > > > > > [2] > > > https://netty.io/4.0/api/io/netty/bootstrap/ServerBootstrap.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2021-07-09 1:41 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > Ivan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've seen the link, but I still don't understand what exactly > > you > > > > > > propose > > > > > > > > to change in the current API, and what is your concern. Could > > you > > > > > > please > > > > > > > > clarify? How you think Ignite API should look like? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 2:18 PM Ivan Daschinsky < > > > > ivanda...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Val, I have already gave examples -- lettuce, a very > > performant > > > > and > > > > > > > >> modern > > > > > > > >> redis java client > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I can duplicate links again > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > https://lettuce.io/core/release/api/io/lettuce/core/RedisClient.html > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lettuce.io/core/release/api/io/lettuce/core/api/StatefulRedisConnection.html > > > > > > > >> https://www.baeldung.com/java-redis-lettuce > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> чт, 8 июл. 2021 г., 23:47 Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > > > >> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >> >: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Ivan, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Can you please clarify what you mean by "separate creation > > of > > > > > client > > > > > > > >> > and > > > > > > > >> > connection"? Can you give an example? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > -Val > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 12:53 PM Ivan Daschinsky < > > > > > > ivanda...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > I'm sorry, but why we didn't consider to separate > creation > > > of > > > > > > Client > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > >> > > connection? Why not to make async variant of connection? > > See > > > > for > > > > > > > >> example > > > > > > > >> > > [1] > > > > > > > >> > > [1] --- https://lettuce.io/core/release/api/index.html > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > чт, 8 июл. 2021 г., 09:50 Pavel Tupitsyn < > > > > ptupit...@apache.org > > > > > >: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Val, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > So the plan is: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > - Remove Ignition#start from the public API > > > > > > > >> > > > - Make Ignition a class, not an interface > > > > > > > >> > > > - Add static Ignition#startClient > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Sounds good? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 6:13 AM Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > > > >> > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > 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 > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
