Aleksandr, The thing is that `cluster init` is not just for setting some kind of a configuration, it's more about doing cluster initialization described in [1]. This init process transitions the cluster from 'empty' state to 'initialized state'; this can be only made once per cluster, and it has to be done for the cluster to function.
So I'd suggest to remove the mentioning of 'configuration' at all; also, `--cluster-url` and `--configuration-file` are not the parameters that are currently implemented; it's actually (currently) taking `--node-endpoint`, `--meta-storage-node` (1+ occurrences) and `--cmg-node` (0+ occurrences) parameters. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-77%3A+Node+Join+Protocol+and+Initialization пт, 27 мая 2022 г. в 13:04, Aleksandr Pakhomov <apk...@gmail.com>: > > Hi Roman, > > That is a good point. In the proposal I mean > the analogue for existing ‘cluster init’. Maybe > “distributed configuration” confuses you and > probably I have to name it like “meta-storage” > configuration or something like this. > > As for 'ignite init’ I think it would be more clearer > if we rename it to ‘ignite install’ and there won’t > any confusion at all. > > What do you think? > > > On 27 May 2022, at 10:20, Roman Puchkovskiy <roman.puchkovs...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Aleksandr. > > > > There is a command named 'init' in your proposal. According to its > > description, it initializes the cluster with a distributed > > configuration. I'm not sure how it's mapped to the existing commands. > > The thing is that currently, there is `ignite init` command that > > initializes (actually, installs) Ignite on the current machine (its > > description does not mention distributed configuration), and there is > > also `ignite cluster init` that initializes the cluster (see [1], for > > example), which does not concern distributed configuration as well. > > > > So it looks like the 2 existing commands got dropped and replaced with > > another 'init' command relating to the distributed config. > > > > Was it intentional? > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14871 > > > > ср, 25 мая 2022 г. в 18:12, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org>: > >> > >> Aleksandr, > >> > >> Both proposed options look good to me because both cases assume that a > >> user must express their intent explicitly. > >> > >> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:53 AM Aleksandr Pakhomov <apk...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> I got it. What do you think about this proposal: > >>> > >>> - “ignite” prints help > >>> - “ignite shell” enters REPL > >>> > >>> Or > >>> > >>> - “ignite” prints help > >>> - “ignite-shell” enters REPL and it is a separate application > >>> > >>> I prefer the first varian but I would like to hear opinions of other > >>> community members. > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 19 May 2022, at 01:16, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I can just have a mistake in my script, e.g. running ignite command > >>>> without any parameters. What will happen in such a case from the > >>>> script perspective? I think the script will wait for returning value > >>>> while the shell will wait for a user input. Due to a server-side > >>>> nature of the script it will hang forever because there is no user on > >>>> the server side. > >>> >
