Dmitry, How do you think, should we just change the behavior or make it configurable?
-Val On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree that we have a consistency issue here. I am OK with the change. > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > Currently there are two different ways how a client node behaves in case > > there are no server nodes: > > > > 1. If it's trying to start, it will wait and block the thread that > > called Ignition.start(). > > 2. If server nodes left when it was already running, it will throw > > disconnect exception on any API call. > > > > It seems confusing to me (and not only to me, as far as I can see from > the > > users' feedback). First of all, it's just inconsistent and requires > > different processing for these different cases. Second of all, p.1 is > often > > treated as a hang, but not as correct behavior. And it's getting worse > when > > the node is started as a part of web application, because it blocks the > > application startup process. > > > > I think we should start a client node (or at least have a configurable > > option) even if there are no servers yet. Until the first server joins, > it > > will just throw disconnect exceptions. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -Val > > >
