IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

[afedotov]

PR updated

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Okay. Will do it shortly.
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Semyon Boikov <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > 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 <
>> [hidden email]
>> > >:
>> >
>> > > 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 <
>> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Sure. Will take a look.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
>> > > 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 Alexander Fedotov <
>> > > >> [hidden email]>:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > 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 <
>> [hidden email]
>> > >
>> > > >> > 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 <
>> > > >> > [hidden email]
>> > > >> > > >:
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > > 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 <
>> > > >> [hidden email]>
>> > > >> > > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > > 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 <
>> > > >> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > Hi,
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > Created Upsource review for the subject:
>> > > >> > > > > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.o
>> rg/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> > > >> > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > 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/vi
>> ewLog.html?buildId=423955&
>> > > >> > > > > > > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/
>> > > >> > > ignite/pull/1435/
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <
>> > > >> [hidden email]>
>> > > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > >> 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://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
>> > Apache+
>> > > >> > > > > > >> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <
>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
>> > > >> > > > > > >> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+I
>> gnite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
>> > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> —
>> > > >> > > > > > >> Denis
>> > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > >> > > [hidden email]
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > > > > > >> > 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
>> <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 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 where we
>> should
>> > > >> prefer
>> > > >> > > name
>> > > >> > > > > > >> "grid" or
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or
>> > "Ignite
>> > > >> > > instance
>> > > >> > > > > > >> name" can
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> be used without any semantic impact?
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander
>> Fedotov <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> 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"
>> > > >> <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> [hidden email]> написал:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> 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, or
>> should we
>> > > >> leave
>> > > >> > it
>> > > >> > > > as
>> > > >> > > > > > >> null if
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> user does not define it?
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> D.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <
>> > > >> > > > [hidden email]
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName'
>> suits
>> > > >> better
>> > > >> > > > > > considering
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> your
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> explanation.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> --
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> Denis
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin
>> Kulichenko <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> 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 get existing *Ignite*
>> > > >> instance.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node
>> > > >> representation
>> > > >> > > we
>> > > >> > > > > have
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId()
>> method
>> > > for
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> identification.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will
>> have
>> > > >> both
>> > > >> > > > > nodeName
>> > > >> > > > > > >> and
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely
>> > different
>> > > >> > meaning
>> > > >> > > > and
>> > > >> > > > > > >> used
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> in
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to
>> > > understand
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> difference
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more
>> > confusing
>> > > >> than
>> > > >> > > > > current
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> gridName.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> -Val
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <
>> > > >> > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> 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 <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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" <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> [hidden email]>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> написал:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy
>> Setrakyan <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> [hidden email]>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of
>> this
>> > > >> > > > configuration
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> parameter?
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda
>> <
>> > > >> > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> 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 <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> [hidden email]
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis
>> Magda <
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it
>> > > obvious
>> > > >> > that
>> > > >> > > > the
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> name
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> is
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> for
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> local node?
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> --
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Kind regards,
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Alexander.
>> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > > --
>> > > >> > > > > > > Kind regards,
>> > > >> > > > > > > Alexander.
>> > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > > > --
>> > > >> > > > > > Kind regards,
>> > > >> > > > > > Alexander.
>> > > >> > > > > >
>> > > >> > > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > --
>> > > >> > > > Kind regards,
>> > > >> > > > Alexander.
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > --
>> > > >> > Kind regards,
>> > > >> > Alexander.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Kind regards,
>> > > > Alexander.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Kind regards,
>> > > Alexander.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alex.
>

--
Kind regards,
Alex.

[Semyon Boikov]

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 <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> PR updated
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Okay. Will do it shortly.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Semyon Boikov <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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 <
> >> [hidden email]
> >> > >:
> >> >
> >> > > 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 <
> >> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Sure. Will take a look.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> [hidden email]>
> >> > > 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 Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > > >> [hidden email]>:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > 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 <
> >> [hidden email]
> >> > >
> >> > > >> > 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 <
> >> > > >> > [hidden email]
> >> > > >> > > >:
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > > 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 <
> >> > > >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > 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 <
> >> > > >> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > Created Upsource review for the subject:
> >> > > >> > > > > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.o
> >> rg/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >> > > >> > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > 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/vi
> >> ewLog.html?buildId=423955&
> >> > > >> > > > > > > tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/
> >> > > >> > > ignite/pull/1435/
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <
> >> > > >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> 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://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> >> > Apache+
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <
> >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+I
> >> gnite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> —
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> Denis
> >> > > >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> > > >> > > [hidden email]
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> > 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
> >> <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 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 where we
> >> should
> >> > > >> prefer
> >> > > >> > > name
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> "grid" or
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or
> >> > "Ignite
> >> > > >> > > instance
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> name" can
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> be used without any semantic impact?
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander
> >> Fedotov <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> 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"
> >> > > >> <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> [hidden email]> написал:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> 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, or
> >> should we
> >> > > >> leave
> >> > > >> > it
> >> > > >> > > > as
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> null if
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> user does not define it?
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> D.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <
> >> > > >> > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName'
> >> suits
> >> > > >> better
> >> > > >> > > > > > considering
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> your
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> explanation.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> --
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> Denis
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin
> >> Kulichenko <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> 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 get existing *Ignite*
> >> > > >> instance.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node
> >> > > >> representation
> >> > > >> > > we
> >> > > >> > > > > have
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId()
> >> method
> >> > > for
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> identification.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will
> >> have
> >> > > >> both
> >> > > >> > > > > nodeName
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> and
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely
> >> > different
> >> > > >> > meaning
> >> > > >> > > > and
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> used
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> in
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to
> >> > > understand
> >> > > >> > the
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> difference
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more
> >> > confusing
> >> > > >> than
> >> > > >> > > > > current
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> gridName.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> -Val
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <
> >> > > >> > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> 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 <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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" <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> [hidden email]>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> написал:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> 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
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy
> >> Setrakyan <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> [hidden email]>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of
> >> this
> >> > > >> > > > configuration
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> parameter?
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis
> Magda
> >> <
> >> > > >> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> 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 <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>> [hidden email]
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis
> >> Magda <
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't
> it
> >> > > obvious
> >> > > >> > that
> >> > > >> > > > the
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> name
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>> is
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> for
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> local node?
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> --
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Kind regards,
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Alexander.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > > --
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Kind regards,
> >> > > >> > > > > > > Alexander.
> >> > > >> > > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > > > --
> >> > > >> > > > > > Kind regards,
> >> > > >> > > > > > Alexander.
> >> > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > >> > > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > --
> >> > > >> > > > Kind regards,
> >> > > >> > > > Alexander.
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > --
> >> > > >> > Kind regards,
> >> > > >> > Alexander.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Kind regards,
> >> > > > Alexander.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Kind regards,
> >> > > Alexander.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> > Alex.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alex.
>

[dmagda]

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 <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide>

There you need to say that IgniteConfiguration.gridNama parameter has been changed to the other one that behaves this or that way.

—
Denis

> On Mar 13, 2017, at 4:37 AM, Semyon Boikov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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 <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> PR updated
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay. Will do it shortly.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Semyon Boikov <[hidden email]>
>>> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 <
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. Will take a look.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <
>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>> 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 Alexander Fedotov <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Created Upsource review for the subject:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://reviews.ignite.apache.o
>>>> rg/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/vi
>>>> ewLog.html?buildId=423955&
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_RunAll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kindly take a look at PR https://github.com/apache/
>>>>>>>>>> ignite/pull/1435/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Denis Magda <
>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
>>>>> Apache+
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide <
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> luence/display/IGNITE/Apache+I
>>>> gnite+2.0+Migration+Guide>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 where we
>>>> should
>>>>>>>> prefer
>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "grid" or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "grid name" instead of "Ignite instance name" or
>>>>> "Ignite
>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name" can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be used without any semantic impact?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Alexander
>>>> Fedotov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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"
>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> написал:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, or
>>>> should we
>>>>>>>> leave
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> null if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> user does not define it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Denis Magda <
>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds reasonable. Agree that 'instanceName'
>>>> suits
>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 30, 2016, Valentin
>>>> Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 get existing *Ignite*
>>>>>>>> instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite ignite = Ignition.ignite(name);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with nodes. For node
>>>>>>>> representation
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ClusterNode API, which already has nodeId()
>>>> method
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, if we choose nodeName, we will
>>>> have
>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>> nodeName
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodeId in the product, but with absolutely
>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different parts of API. How user is going to
>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between them? In my view, this is even more
>>>>> confusing
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gridName.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Denis Magda <
>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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" <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> написал:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Dmitriy
>>>> Setrakyan <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of
>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis
>> Magda
>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis
>>>> Magda <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't
>> it
>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> local node?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Alex.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kind regards,
>> Alex.
>>