Re: Ignite 3.0 Ignition API, node startup, and thin client startup

2021-07-08 Thread Ivan Pavlukhin
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

Re: Ignite 3.0 Ignition API, node startup, and thin client startup

2021-07-08 Thread Valentin Kulichenko
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 wrote: > Val, I have already gave exa

Re: Ignite 3.0 Ignition API, node startup, and thin client startup

2021-07-08 Thread Ivan Daschinsky
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.co

Re: Ignite 3.0 Ignition API, node startup, and thin client startup

2021-07-08 Thread Valentin Kulichenko
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 wrote: > I'm sorry, but why we didn't consider to separate creation of Client and > connection? Why not to make async varian

Re: Ignite 3.0 Ignition API, node startup, and thin client startup

2021-07-08 Thread Valentin Kulichenko
Pavel, Yes, makes sense. -Val On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:50 PM Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > 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 Val

Re: Ignite 3.0 Ignition API, node startup, and thin client startup

2021-07-08 Thread Ivan Daschinsky
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 : > Val, > > So the plan is: > > - Remove Ignition

[MTCGA]: new failures in builds [6077453] needs to be handled

2021-07-08 Thread dpavlov . tasks
Hi Igniters, I've detected some new issue on TeamCity to be handled. You are more than welcomed to help. *New test failure in master-nightly HistoricalRebalanceTwoPartsInDifferentCheckpointsTest.testOlderPartitionUpdateFirst https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTest

Re: [DOCUMENTATION] Create of Ignite-style images

2021-07-08 Thread Denis Magda
Hi Nikolay, Check the “svg” folders which contain most of the images we use across the website and docs. You can build new pics out of those. — Denis > On Jul 8, 2021, at 11:20 PM, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > Hello, Igniters. > > We have many beautiful images [1] in documentation. > I want t

[DOCUMENTATION] Create of Ignite-style images

2021-07-08 Thread Nikolay Izhikov
Hello, Igniters. We have many beautiful images [1] in documentation. I want to create images that have similar style with other to keep docs consistent. Do we have some guides or styles I can use? [1] https://ignite.apache.org/docs/2.10.0/images/ignite_clustering.png

Re: Problem with dropping the index

2021-07-08 Thread Alexei Scherbakov
I assume DurableBackgroundTask will no longer use references to root ids. The proposed solution looks good to me. чт, 8 июл. 2021 г. в 10:28, Ivan Bessonov : > Hi guys, > > I see that the original message and its clarification is hard to consume. > The problem is that indexes are identified by

Re: Problem with dropping the index

2021-07-08 Thread Ivan Bessonov
Hi guys, I see that the original message and its clarification is hard to consume. The problem is that indexes are identified by their names. So, the situation that Kirill described is a valid one: - you have index X for columns (a, b); - you drop it; - you create index X for columns (a, c). This