Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Alexander, May I ask you to update Apache Ignite 2.0 migration guide? https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide There you need to say that IgniteConfiguration.gridNa

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Thank you Alexander, I merged these changes. I recommend everybody get latest chages from ignite-2.0. Thanks! On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Alexander Fedotov < alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > PR updated > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Alexander Fedotov < > alexander.fedot...@gmai

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Okay. Will do it shortly. On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Semyon Boikov wrote: > Alexander, > > I see there are conflicts again, could you plase resolve them, I'm going to > review and merge these changes today. > > Thanks! > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Yakov Zhdanov > wrote: > > > Than

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

PR updated On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Alexander Fedotov < alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Okay. Will do it shortly. > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Semyon Boikov > wrote: > >> Alexander, >> >> I see there are conflicts again, could you plase resolve them, I'm going >> to >> rev

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Alexander, I see there are conflicts again, could you plase resolve them, I'm going to review and merge these changes today. Thanks! On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > Thanks, Alex! > > Sam, can you please also take a look to make sure we catch all possible > issues on rev

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Thanks, Alex! Sam, can you please also take a look to make sure we catch all possible issues on review? Let's merge this on Monday since this is very conflict-prone change. --Yakov 2017-03-10 12:57 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov : > Hi, > PR updated. Currently no conflicts at > https://github.com/

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Hi, PR updated. Currently no conflicts at https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435. On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Alexander Fedotov < alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure. Will take a look. > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > >> Alexander, >> >> Page https://git

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Sure. Will take a look. On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > Alexander, > > Page https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435 reports several conflicts. > Can you please check and resolve if necessary. Then resubmit for review > again. > > --Yakov > > 2017-03-03 13:24 GMT+03:00 A

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Alexander, Page https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1435 reports several conflicts. Can you please check and resolve if necessary. Then resubmit for review again. --Yakov 2017-03-03 13:24 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov : > Hi, it's ready for review > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/revie

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Hi, it's ready for review http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81 On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status of this ticket and > further steps? > > --Yakov > > 2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov >: > > >

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Guys, I want to bring this up. What is the status of this ticket and further steps? --Yakov 2017-01-30 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Fedotov : > Done. But it looks like something went wrong since Upsource reports: > "Review has too many files (1244), aborting". > > Also guys, I believe we need to me

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Done. But it looks like something went wrong since Upsource reports: "Review has too many files (1244), aborting". Also guys, I believe we need to merge this change in short time because it's targeted for 2.0 and chances for a conflict are high. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Alexander, Please name the review appropriately and link it in the ticket as described: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-ReviewWithUpsource Thanks, Pavel On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Alexander Fedotov < alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote:

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Hi, Created Upsource review for the subject: http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81 On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov < alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I've completed working on IGNITE-3207 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207 > >

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Hi, I've completed working on IGNITE-3207 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207 Looks like TC test results don't have problems related to my changes http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=423955&tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll Kindly take a look at PR htt

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Support Pavel’s point of view. Also Alexander please make sure that your changes are merged into ignite-2.0 branch rather than to the master. I think this functionality has to be available in 2.0 first. Finally, please update 2.0 Migration Guide once you’ve finished with this task: https://cwi

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

I think we should fix log output as well and replace all "grid" occurences with "instance". On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Alexander Fedotov < alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I think we should leave null as a default value for unnamed Ignite > instances. At least that change sho

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Hi, I think we should leave null as a default value for unnamed Ignite instances. At least that change should be considered out of the current scope. What about naming, I'm also renaming log occurrences of "grid" and "grid name" where it stands reasonable. Are there places in the logging logic wh

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Okay. From the all said above I suppose "instanceName" should work for IgniteConfiguration and "igniteInstanceName" in all other places. Regards, Alexander 31 дек. 2016 г. 3:43 AM пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < dsetrak...@apache.org> написал: It sounds like it must be unique then. I would pr

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

It sounds like it must be unique then. I would propose the following: 1. If user defines the instanceName, then we assign it to the node. 2. If user does not define the instance name, then we have to give it some unique value, like node ID or PID. Will this change be backward compatible,

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName' suits better considering your explanation. -- Denis On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > This name identifies instance of Ignite, in case there are more than one > within an application. Here are o

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

This name identifies instance of Ignite, in case there are more than one within an application. Here are our API methods around this: // We provide a name and get newly started *Ignite* instance. Ignite ignite = Ignition.start(new IgniteConfiguration().setGridName(name)); // We provide a name and

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Alexander, frankly speaking I'm still for your original proposal - nodeName. The uniqueness specificities can be set in the doc. -- Denis On Friday, December 30, 2016, Alexander Fedotov < alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, then may be we should go with one of the below names: > > proces

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Well, then may be we should go with one of the below names: processNodeName jvmNodeName runtimeNodeName processScopedNodeName jvmScopedNodeName runtimeScopedNodeName processWideNodeName jvmWideNodeName runtimeWideNodeName Regards, Alexander 31 дек. 2016 г. 12:37 AM пользователь "Denis Magda" на

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

The parameter specifies a node name which has to be unique per JVM process (if you start multiple nodes in a single process). In my understanding it was mainly introduced to handle these multiple-nodes-per-JVM scenarios. However, several nodes can have the same name cluster wide. — Denis > O

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Now I am confused. What is the purpose of this configuration parameter? On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > See Val’s concern in the discussion. I’m absolutely fine with ‘nodeName’. > > — > Denis > > > On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

See Val’s concern in the discussion. I’m absolutely fine with ‘nodeName’. — Denis > On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > >> What’s about ‘localNodeName’? >> > > Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it obvious that

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > What’s about ‘localNodeName’? > Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it obvious that the name is for the local node?

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

What’s about ‘localNodeName’? — Denis > On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:11 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > > >> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Valentin Kulichenko >> wrote: >> >> 'nodeName' sounds like it has to be unique across nodes in topology, which >> is wrong. > > If to follow your logic then for me ne

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Valentin Kulichenko > wrote: > > 'nodeName' sounds like it has to be unique across nodes in topology, which > is wrong. If to follow your logic then for me neither ‘igniteInstanceName’ nor ‘igniteName’ makes it clear whether the name has to be unique or not clus

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

'nodeName' sounds like it has to be unique across nodes in topology, which is wrong. I don't think there is a perfect name for this, but 'igniteName' or 'igniteInstanceName' seem to be the best options for me. -Val On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > To be honest both instan

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

To be honest both instanceName and igniteInstanceName sound confusing to me. I still need to go to the documentation to figure out what the hell “instance” is. Personally, if the property was called “nodeName” or “igniteNodeName” then I would’t need to refer to the docs because everyone knows wh

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > instanceName is confusing in, for example, SpringCacheManager and several > other places. See email from Alexander. > Not sure why "instanceName" is confusing, but if it is, I would prefer "nodeName" then.

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

instanceName is confusing in, for example, SpringCacheManager and several other places. See email from Alexander. Btw, gridName was OK for GridConfiguration:) -- Yakov Zhdanov

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > Alexander, your point makes sense to me. Please go on with > 'igniteInstanceName' and let me review the PR so we can take the final > decision. > How about just "instanceName"?

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Alexander, your point makes sense to me. Please go on with 'igniteInstanceName' and let me review the PR so we can take the final decision. --Yakov

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Hello! Looks like there has not been any activity on the issue since July, so I've taken the issue. I still have a concern regarding the naming: "instanceName" is quite vague in some contexts like IgniteThread, SpringCacheManage etc. I would suggest naming it like "gridInstanceName" or "nodeName"

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Biao, are you still working on this ticket or should someone else in the community pick it up? On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > We keep getting a steady stream of users confused by gridName :) > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207 seems to be abandoned, > s

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

We keep getting a steady stream of users confused by gridName :) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207 seems to be abandoned, should we unassign it? Pavel. On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Great! I think I like “instanceName” better, just in case if this

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Great! I think I like “instanceName” better, just in case if this name will be provided for information purposes on other nodes. D. On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > Done: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207 > > I have stated "localInstanceName" there, becau

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Done: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3207 I have stated "localInstanceName" there, because "instanceName" may not be clear enough. Pavel. On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > I like the change, as long as we do not remove, but *deprecate* the > gridName pr

Re: IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

I like the change, as long as we do not remove, but *deprecate* the gridName property and update all the documentation and examples. Pavel, can you please file a ticket? D. On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > Igniters, > > We have got a TON of questions on gridName propert

IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

Igniters, We have got a TON of questions on gridName property. Everyone thinks that clusters are formed based on the gridName, that is, nodes with the same grid name will join one cluster, and nodes with a different name will be in a separate cluster. I suggest to deprecate this property and add