Dmitry, I think Anton meant AtomicsConfiguration, not atomic caches. However, I would make sure we validate all conf parameters.
Anton, can you please share junit test that shows the problem? Yakov Zhdanov сб, 7 апр. 2018 г., 6:12 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > I would say absolutely YES - we need to have configuration validation. > > Igniters, why was the validation skipped in atomic caches? > > D. > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 1:43 PM, akurbanov <antkr....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello Igniters, > > > > I want to address a question on AtomicConfiguration validation. I've > tested > > in ignite-1.8 branch that it is impossible to start two nodes with > > different > > AtomicConfiguration parameters e.g. different cache modes or numbers of > > backups are provided. > > JIRA link: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2096 > > > > In ignite-2.4 AtomicConfiguration validation is completely skipped on > node > > startup and this issue is non-reproducible. Node with alternative > > configuration successfully joins, but this configuration is being > > completely > > ignored, all created atomics will reference the same initial > configuration > > and belong to the same cache "ignite-sys-atomic-cache@default-ds-group", > > even if configuration is provided in constructor. > > > > Do we need any kind of validation for this configuration? > > Would it be correct to use the same approach for atomic types instances > > caching as used for IgniteQueue/IgniteSet, cache for each unique > > configuration? > > > > Best regards, > > Anton Kurbanov > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ > > >
