Deprecate IgniteConfiguration.getGridName

[yzhdanov]

Guys,

I am thinking of deprecating this property.

1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there would
be separate topologies
2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
interface.
3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if different
names are configured within the same topology -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10

Thoughts?

--Yakov

[Sergi]

Agree, the whole concept of grid name looks weird if nodes with different
names still work as a single topology.
Though we will need to refactor our tests if we are going to remove it..

Sergi

2015-08-18 13:42 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>:

> Guys,
>
> I am thinking of deprecating this property.
>
> 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there would
> be separate topologies
> 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> interface.
> 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if different
> names are configured within the same topology -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --Yakov
>

[Vladimir Ozerov]

+1

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Sergi Vladykin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Agree, the whole concept of grid name looks weird if nodes with different
> names still work as a single topology.
> Though we will need to refactor our tests if we are going to remove it..
>
> Sergi
>
> 2015-08-18 13:42 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> >
> > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there would
> > be separate topologies
> > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> > interface.
> > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> different
> > names are configured within the same topology -
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
>

[Semyon Boikov]

In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
distinguish nodes in our tests?

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Guys,
>
> I am thinking of deprecating this property.
>
> 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there would
> be separate topologies
> 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> interface.
> 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if different
> names are configured within the same topology -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --Yakov
>

[Alexey Kuznetsov-2]

Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some marker
to node attributes) ?

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
> distinguish nodes in our tests?
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> >
> > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there would
> > be separate topologies
> > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> > interface.
> > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> different
> > names are configured within the same topology -
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
>

--
Alexey Kuznetsov
GridGain Systems
www.gridgain.com

[Semyon Boikov]

There is already convinient way to distinguish nodes, why we are trying to
invent something new?

Also note that now node name is added to the names of all ignite threads,
so when I run test from logs I can quickly understand where operation is
executed, I do not want to drop this feature.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some marker
> to node attributes) ?
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> > Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> > 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
> > distinguish nodes in our tests?
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> > >
> > > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> > > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there
> would
> > > be separate topologies
> > > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> > > interface.
> > > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> > different
> > > names are configured within the same topology -
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alexey Kuznetsov
> GridGain Systems
> www.gridgain.com
>

[Denis Magda]

Fully share Semyon's opinion: renaming to 'nodeName'.


On 8/19/2015 11:22 AM, Semyon Boikov wrote:

> There is already convinient way to distinguish nodes, why we are trying to
> invent something new?
>
> Also note that now node name is added to the names of all ignite threads,
> so when I run test from logs I can quickly understand where operation is
> executed, I do not want to drop this feature.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some marker
>> to node attributes) ?
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
>>> Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
>>> 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
>>> distinguish nodes in our tests?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Guys,
>>>>
>>>> I am thinking of deprecating this property.
>>>>
>>>> 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
>>>> single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there
>> would
>>>> be separate topologies
>>>> 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
>>>> interface.
>>>> 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
>>>> deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
>>> different
>>>> names are configured within the same topology -
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> --Yakov
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexey Kuznetsov
>> GridGain Systems
>> www.gridgain.com
>>

[Alexey Kuznetsov-2]

Now I also agree with Semyon about nodeName thread names are very important
debug feature.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Fully share Semyon's opinion: renaming to 'nodeName'.
>
>
>
> On 8/19/2015 11:22 AM, Semyon Boikov wrote:
>
>> There is already convinient way to distinguish nodes, why we are trying to
>> invent something new?
>>
>> Also note that now node name is added to the names of all ignite threads,
>> so when I run test from logs I can quickly understand where operation is
>> executed, I do not want to drop this feature.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Alexey Kuznetsov <
>> [hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some marker
>>> to node attributes) ?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
>>>> Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
>>>> 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
>>>> distinguish nodes in our tests?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am thinking of deprecating this property.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
>>>>> single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there
>>>>>
>>>> would
>>>
>>>> be separate topologies
>>>>> 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
>>>>> interface.
>>>>> 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
>>>>> deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
>>>>>
>>>> different
>>>>
>>>>> names are configured within the same topology -
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> --Yakov
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alexey Kuznetsov
>>> GridGain Systems
>>> www.gridgain.com
>>>
>>>
>

--
Alexey Kuznetsov
GridGain Systems
www.gridgain.com

[yzhdanov]

I tend to agree with Semyon. This is not a grid name, but the name of the
local Ignite instance as an entry point to the grid. And this name is used
to conveniently get local Ignite instance: Ignite ignite =
Ignition.ignite(name);

It's usage in internal marshalling should stop.

Any other opinions?

--Yakov

2015-08-19 11:04 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]>:

> Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some marker
> to node attributes) ?
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> > Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> > 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
> > distinguish nodes in our tests?
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> > >
> > > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> > > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there
> would
> > > be separate topologies
> > > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> > > interface.
> > > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> > different
> > > names are configured within the same topology -
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alexey Kuznetsov
> GridGain Systems
> www.gridgain.com
>

[dsetrakyan]

Although I share the sentiment that gridName is confusing, I think renaming
gridName to nodeName will be equally confusing. The "nodeName" property
sounds like something that should be on ClusterNode API, which is not the
case.

If we rename if in one of the future versions, I think instanceName would
be a better option, no?

D.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I tend to agree with Semyon. This is not a grid name, but the name of the
> local Ignite instance as an entry point to the grid. And this name is used
> to conveniently get local Ignite instance: Ignite ignite =
> Ignition.ignite(name);
>
> It's usage in internal marshalling should stop.
>
> Any other opinions?
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2015-08-19 11:04 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some
> marker
> > to node attributes) ?
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> > > Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> > > 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
> > > distinguish nodes in our tests?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> > > >
> > > > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build
> a
> > > > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there
> > would
> > > > be separate topologies
> > > > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through
> Ignition
> > > > interface.
> > > > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > > > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> > > different
> > > > names are configured within the same topology -
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > --Yakov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > GridGain Systems
> > www.gridgain.com
> >
>

[Semyon Boikov]

We can add 'nodeName' on ClusterNode API, it is very easy to implement
since node name is already stored in node attributes.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Although I share the sentiment that gridName is confusing, I think renaming
> gridName to nodeName will be equally confusing. The "nodeName" property
> sounds like something that should be on ClusterNode API, which is not the
> case.
>
> If we rename if in one of the future versions, I think instanceName would
> be a better option, no?
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I tend to agree with Semyon. This is not a grid name, but the name of the
> > local Ignite instance as an entry point to the grid. And this name is
> used
> > to conveniently get local Ignite instance: Ignite ignite =
> > Ignition.ignite(name);
> >
> > It's usage in internal marshalling should stop.
> >
> > Any other opinions?
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
> > 2015-08-19 11:04 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some
> > marker
> > > to node attributes) ?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> > > > Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> > > > 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
> > > > distinguish nodes in our tests?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and
> build
> > a
> > > > > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there
> > > would
> > > > > be separate topologies
> > > > > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through
> > Ignition
> > > > > interface.
> > > > > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > > > > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> > > > different
> > > > > names are configured within the same topology -
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > --Yakov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > GridGain Systems
> > > www.gridgain.com
> > >
> >
>

[Sergi]

I think `instanceName` is good enough (if it will have a proper javadoc).

Sergi

2015-08-26 9:24 GMT+03:00 Semyon Boikov <[hidden email]>:

> We can add 'nodeName' on ClusterNode API, it is very easy to implement
> since node name is already stored in node attributes.
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Although I share the sentiment that gridName is confusing, I think
> renaming
> > gridName to nodeName will be equally confusing. The "nodeName" property
> > sounds like something that should be on ClusterNode API, which is not the
> > case.
> >
> > If we rename if in one of the future versions, I think instanceName would
> > be a better option, no?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I tend to agree with Semyon. This is not a grid name, but the name of
> the
> > > local Ignite instance as an entry point to the grid. And this name is
> > used
> > > to conveniently get local Ignite instance: Ignite ignite =
> > > Ignition.ignite(name);
> > >
> > > It's usage in internal marshalling should stop.
> > >
> > > Any other opinions?
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> > > 2015-08-19 11:04 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Semen, it is possible to distinguish nodes via attributes (put some
> > > marker
> > > > to node attributes) ?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Semyon Boikov <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> > > > > Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> > > > > 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we
> will
> > > > > distinguish nodes in our tests?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and
> > build
> > > a
> > > > > > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that
> there
> > > > would
> > > > > > be separate topologies
> > > > > > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through
> > > Ignition
> > > > > > interface.
> > > > > > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > > > > > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> > > > > different
> > > > > > names are configured within the same topology -
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Yakov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > GridGain Systems
> > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Raul Kripalani-2]

Agree. The term grid to refer to a single node is very confusing.
On 19 Aug 2015 08:58, "Semyon Boikov" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
> distinguish nodes in our tests?
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Guys,
> >
> > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> >
> > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there would
> > be separate topologies
> > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> > interface.
> > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> different
> > names are configured within the same topology -
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
>

[Valentin Kulichenko]

+1 for 'instanceName'. 'nodeName' looks confusing as well - I would think
that it should be unique among all nodes.

-Val

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Agree. The term grid to refer to a single node is very confusing.
> On 19 Aug 2015 08:58, "Semyon Boikov" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion this propery just should be renamed to 'nodeName'.
> > Possibility to set node name is very useful in our tests. As I see
> > 'setNodeId' is already deprecated in IgniteConfiguration, how we will
> > distinguish nodes in our tests?
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I am thinking of deprecating this property.
> > >
> > > 1. nodes with different grid names can discover each other and build a
> > > single topology. I heard that some of the users expected that there
> would
> > > be separate topologies
> > > 2. Locally started nodes can be accessed via their IDs through Ignition
> > > interface.
> > > 3. Internally gridName is used in components serialization and
> > > deserializaiton, but this is very unreliable and can be broken if
> > different
> > > names are configured within the same topology -
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> >
>

[bintisepaha]

Hi,
We are facing this issue, nodes with different grid names are being identified in a single topology.
Did the fix for this make it into version 1.6? If yes, how can I get this version?

Thanks,
Binti

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Binti,

This is not an issue. What is discussed here is just proper naming of this
configuration property, but the concept stays the same - this is the name
of local Ignite instance and there is no requirement for all nodes in
topology to share the same name.

Whether nodes discover each other or not is defined by discovery
configuration:
https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/cluster-config#isolated-ignite-clusters-on-the-same-set-of-machin

-Val

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:19 AM, bintisepaha <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
> We are facing this issue, nodes with different grid names are being
> identified in a single topology.
> Did the fix for this make it into version 1.6? If yes, how can I get this
> version?
>
> Thanks,
> Binti
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Deprecate-IgniteConfiguration-getGridName-tp2420p7613.html
> Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

[bintisepaha]

Thank you Val, this is very helpful.