Pavel, actually, setters in builder is not ok. But as for me, the better
approach is something like this:
IgniteClient client = IgniteClient.start("127.0.0.1:10800")
or
CompletableFuture<IgniteClient> client =
IgniteClient.startAsync(IgniteClientConfiguration.builder()
.addresses("127.0.0.1:10800)
.timeout(5000)
.build())
I suppose that should be a few simple shortcuts to start client as is and
immutable IgniteClientConfiguration.
My point is:
1. It is easier to understand (creation is within IgniteClient, easy to
find and very predictable, Ignition is not intuitive, but may be fun and
eastern egg like)
2. Immutable configuration -- harder to make a mistake when extending
configuration (you must always copy config if it is mutable), less syntaxic
garbage ('set' prefix is not needed)
вт, 13 июл. 2021 г. в 09:55, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
> Val,
>
> Ivan D has convinced me above to try the builder pattern, which is used by
> many other drivers (Redis, Mongo, etc).
> With IgniteClient class in ignite-client module:
>
> Ignite client = IgniteClient.builder()
> .setAddresses("127.0.0.1:10800")
> .setTimeout(5000)
> .build();
>
> What do you think?
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 10:57 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pavel,
> >
> > If Ignition is the single entry point, it needs to have access to the
> > server node instance, so it needs to depend on ignite-runner. Therefore,
> > including Ignition in ignite-client means that ignite-client depends on
> > ignite-runner, which we cannot have.
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 4:17 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
