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 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 <dma...@gridgain.com> 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 < >> alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> 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" <dma...@apache.org> >> > 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 <dsetrak...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Now I am confused. What is the purpose of this configuration parameter? >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> 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 < dsetrak...@apache.org >> > >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> What’s about ‘localNodeName’? >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Why is it better than "nodeName"? Isn't it obvious that the name is >> for >> >>> the >> >>>> local node? >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> >
