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 < alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> 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 < > alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> 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" < > > dsetrak...@apache.org> 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 <dma...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Alexander. >
