> But configuration should be a POJO - a class with setters and getters,
nothing else.
Why it should? Why ClientConfiguration should be serializable? Who needs
that? Xml configuration even in spring are not widely used for years :)
вс, 11 июл. 2021 г., 00:57 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
> Ivan D,
>
> Let's compare WebClient approach with Ignite 2.x approach:
>
> // Ignite 2.x
> var cfg = new ClientConfiguration()
> .setAddresses("127.0.0.1:10800", "127.0.0.1:10801")
> .setTimeout(4000);
>
> Ignite client = Ignition.startClient(cfg);
>
> // Ignite 3.x inspired by WebClient
>
> Ignite client = IgniteClient.builder()
> .setAddresses("127.0.0.1:10800", "127.0.0.1:10801")
> .setTimeout(4000)
> .build();
>
>
> To me, there is virtually no difference. Both are simple and
> straightforward.
> "specific static method within strange class with strange name" (whatever
> that means) can be applied equally to both.
>
> However, ClientConfiguration is a POJO with all the corresponding benefits,
> like easy serialization.
> WebClient.Builder is an interface that does not even provide a way to get
> the property value back.
>
>
> To be clear, I don't have strong opinions on naming (it can be
> Ignition.start or IgniteClient.connect or whatever).
> But configuration should be a POJO - a class with setters and getters,
> nothing else.
>
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 9:49 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Pavel, I and Ivan P. have already get examples of lettuce.io
> >
> > Another example is spring 5 reactive WebClient
> > https://www.baeldung.com/spring-5-webclient
> >
> > сб, 10 июл. 2021 г., 19:50 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Ivan D.,
> > >
> > > > simple and straightforward client builder
> > > Can you please provide an example of that, a piece of code with
> suggested
> > > API usage? Ideally compared to the current 2.x approach.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 3:20 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
