It is a quite questionable decision , as for me, to have specific static method within strange class with strange name (and it is a well known antipatter ) with chained twisted configuration class instead of just simple and straightforward client builder, isn't it? Name 'Ignition' is may be fun, but I cannot understand how it name connects to bootstraping ignite's client.
сб, 10 июл. 2021 г., 14:17 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > Val, > > My suggestion is to have Ignition class in ignite-client module. > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 11:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Pavel, > > > > Ivan actually brings a good point. While the client is in a separate > > module, Ignition (if we make it static) will have to depend on both > > ignite-client and ignite-runner, and we will have to ship it along with > the > > client. This indeed creates an uber-jar, so we can't really have a single > > entry point, unfortunately. > > > > I'm not sure what is the best way to proceed here. Let's think it over > and > > see if there are any suggestions. > > > > -Val > > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 6:31 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
