IgniteConfiguration.gridName is very confusing

[Pavel Tupitsyn-3]

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 instanceName instead.

Thoughts?

Pavel.

[dsetrakyan]

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 <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> 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 instanceName instead.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Pavel.
>

[Pavel Tupitsyn-3]

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 <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 instanceName instead.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Pavel.
> >
>

[dsetrakyan]

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 <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 instanceName instead.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Pavel.
> > >
> >
>

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

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 <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 instanceName instead.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Pavel.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[dsetrakyan]

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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 instanceName instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Pavel.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[afedotov]

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". Also to make clear that the name is effective locally "localNodeName" or "localGridInstanceName" could be used.

Any considerations in this regard?

dsetrakyan wrote

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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 instanceName instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Pavel.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[yzhdanov]

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

[dsetrakyan]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 4:35 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> 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"?

[Yakov Zhdanov-2]

instanceName is confusing in, for example, SpringCacheManager and several
other places. See email from Alexander.

Btw, gridName was OK for GridConfiguration:)

--
Yakov Zhdanov

[dsetrakyan]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
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.

[dmagda]

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 what “node”, “cluster”, “grid” is.

What are the main arguments against “nodeName”?

—
Denis

> On Dec 30, 2016, at 11:58 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> instanceName is confusing in, for example, SpringCacheManager and several
> other places. See email from Alexander.
>
> Btw, gridName was OK for GridConfiguration:)
>
> --
> Yakov Zhdanov

[Valentin Kulichenko]

'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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 what “node”, “cluster”, “grid” is.
>
> What are the main arguments against “nodeName”?
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Dec 30, 2016, at 11:58 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > instanceName is confusing in, for example, SpringCacheManager and several
> > other places. See email from Alexander.
> >
> > Btw, gridName was OK for GridConfiguration:)
> >
> > --
> > Yakov Zhdanov
>
>

[dmagda]

> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <[hidden email]> 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 cluster wide :) So I wouldn’t try to convey this characteristic in the new name.
 
—
Denis

[dmagda]

What’s about ‘localNodeName’?

—
Denis

> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:11 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 30, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <[hidden email]> 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 cluster wide :) So I wouldn’t try to convey this characteristic in the new name.
>
> —
> Denis

[dsetrakyan]

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?

[dmagda]

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?

[dsetrakyan]

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?
>
>

[dmagda]

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?
>>
>>

[afedotov]

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?
>>
>>