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 <ptupit...@apache.org> 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 < > alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Created Upsource review for the subject: > > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-81 > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Alexander Fedotov < > > alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> 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/viewLog.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 <dma...@apache.org> > 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+Ignite+2.0+Migration+Guide> > > >> > > >> — > > >> Denis > > >> > > >> > On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:58 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > > >> 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 < > > >> > 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. > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Kind regards, > > > Alexander. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Kind regards, > > Alexander. > > > -- Kind regards, Alexander.
