Denis,
I don't think that differences with your and my naming is huge :)
And, it's definetely a matter of taste.
If there is no any other issues with PR let's rename and move on! :)
ср, 19 дек. 2018 г. в 17:32, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>:
> > We have IgniteServiceProcessor and GridServiceProcessor with singular
> "Service"
>
> Maybe we should rename new 'IgniteServiceProcessor' to
> 'IgniteServicesProcessor'?
>
> > And ServiceSingleDeploymentsResults name doesn't make sense to me.
> > "Single deployments" doesn't sound right.
>
> 'Single' means 'single node', maybe we should use one of the following:
> - 'ServicesSingleNodeDeploymentsResults'
> - 'ServicesNodeDeploymentsResults'
> - 'ServicesInstanceDeploymentsResults'
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:26 PM Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhani...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Slava,
> > I think, it's better to replace word "Change" with "Request".
> >
> > Nik,
> > We have IgniteServiceProcessor and GridServiceProcessor with singular
> > "Service",
> > ServicesDeploymentManager and ServicesDeploymentTask with plural
> "Services"
> > for some reason.
> > So, you need to remember, where Service and where Services is used.
> > I think, we should unify these names.
> > And ServiceSingleDeploymentsResults name doesn't make sense to me.
> > "Single deployments" doesn't sound right.
> >
> > ServicesFullDeploymentsMessage is derived
> > from GridDhtPartitionsFullMessage.
> > It doesn't really reflect its function. This message is supposed to mark
> > the point in time, when deployment is finished.
> >
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 11:30, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > >*1. Testing of the cache-based implementation of the service grid.*
> > > > I think, we should make a test suite, that will test the old
> > > implementation
> > > > until we remove it from the project.
> > >
> > > Agree. This is exactly what should be done as the first step once
> > > phase 1 will be merged.
> > > I think all tests in the package:
> > > "org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.service" should be moved to
> > > separate test-suite and new build-plan should be added on TC and
> > > included in RunAll.
> > >
> > > > *2. DynamicServiceChangeRequest.*
> > > > I think, this class should be splat into two.
> > >
> > > Personally, I agree, but I have faced opposition at the design step.
> > > I changed to the following structure:
> > >
> > > abstract class ServiceAbstractChange implements Serializable {
> > > protected final IgniteUuid srvcId;
> > > }
> > >
> > > class ServiceDeploymentChange extends ServiceAbstractChange {
> > > ServiceConfiguration cfg;
> > > }
> > >
> > > class ServiceUndeploymentChange extends ServiceAbstractChange { }
> > >
> > > I hope that further reviewers will agree with us.
> > >
> > > > *3. Naming.*
> > >
> > > About "Services" -> "Service" and "Deployments" -> "Deployment"
> > > Personally, I agree with Nikolay, because it's more descriptive since
> > > manages several services, not single.
> > > But, I understand Denis's point of view, we have a lot of classes with
> > > "Service" prefix in naming and "Services" looks a bit alien.
> > >
> > > > *DynamicServicesChangeRequestBatchMessage ->
> DynamicServiceChangeRequest*
> > > Prefix "Dynamic" has no sense anymore since we reworked message
> > > structure as in p.2. so "ServiceChangeBatchRequest" will be better
> > > name.
> > >
> > > > *ServicesSingleDeploymentsMessage -> ServiceDeploymentResponse*
> > > It's not a response and is not sent to the sender. This message is
> > > sent to the coordinator and contains *single node* deployments.
> > >
> > > > *ServicesFullDeploymentsMessage -> ServiceDeploymentFinishMessage*
> > > This should be named similar way as the previous one, but the message
> > > contains deployments of *full set of nodes*.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:58 AM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello, Denis.
> > > >
> > > > Great news.
> > > >
> > > > > *1. Testing of the cache-based implementation of the service grid.*
> > > > > I think, we should make a test suite, that will test the old
> > > implementation> until we> remove it from the project.
> > > >
> > > > Aggree. Let's do it.
> > > >
> > > > > *2. DynamicServiceChangeRequest.*
> > > > > I think, this class should be splat into two.
> > > >
> > > > Agree. Lets's do it.
> > > >
> > > > > *ServicesDeploymentManager*, *ServicesDeploymentTask *and all other
> > > classes> with Services word in them.
> > > > > I think, they would look better if we use a singular word *Service
> > > *instead.
> > > > > Same for *Deployments*.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I want that names as clearly as possible reflects class
> > > content for reader.
> > > > If we deploy *several* services then it has to be Service*S*.
> > > >
> > > > Same for deployment - if this message will initiate single deployment
> > > process then it should use deployment.
> > > > otherwise - deployments.
> > > >
> > > > So my opinion - it's better to keep current naming.
> > > >
> > > > В Чт, 13/12/2018 в 19:36 +0300, Denis Mekhanikov пишет:
> > > > > Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been looking through the PR by Vyacheslav for past few weeks.
> > > > > Slava, great job! You've done an impressive amount of work.
> > > > >
> > > > > I posted my comments to the PR and had a few calls with Slava.
> > > > > I am close to finishing my review.
> > > > > There are some points, that I'd like to settle in this discussion
> to
> > > avoid
> > > > > controversy.
> > > > >
> > > > > *1. Testing of the cache-based implementation of the service grid.*
> > > > > I think, we should make a test suite, that will test the old
> > > implementation
> > > > > until we
> > > > > remove it from the project.
> > > > >
> > > > > *2. DynamicServiceChangeRequest.*
> > > > > I think, this class should be splat into two.
> > > > > I don't see any point in having a single class with "*flags"*
> field,
> > > that
> > > > > shows, what action it actually represents.
> > > > > Usage of *deploy(), markDeploy(...), undeploy(), markUndeploy(...)*
> > > looks
> > > > > wrong.
> > > > > Why not have a separate message type for each action instead?
> > > > >
> > > > > *3. Naming.*
> > > > > I suggest renaming the following classes:
> > > > > *ServicesDeploymentManager*, *ServicesDeploymentTask *and all other
> > > classes
> > > > > with Services word in them.
> > > > > I think, they would look better if we use a singular word *Service
> > > *instead.
> > > > > Same for *Deployments*.
> > > > > I propose the following class names:
> > > > >
> > > > > *ServicesDeploymentManager -> ServiceDeploymentManager*
> > > > > *ServicesDeploymentActions -> ServiceDeploymentActions*
> > > > > *ServicesDeploymentTask -> ServiceDeploymentTask*
> > > > > *ServicesCommonDiscoveryData -> ServiceCommonDiscoveryData*
> > > > > *ServicesJoinNodeDiscoveryData -> ServiceJoiningNodeDiscoveryData*
> > > > >
> > > > > *DynamicServicesChangeRequestBatchMessage ->
> > > DynamicServiceChangeRequest*
> > > > > *ServicesSingleDeploymentsMessage -> ServiceDeploymentResponse*
> > > > > *ServicesFullDeploymentsMessage -> ServiceDeploymentFinishMessage*
> > > > >
> > > > > *ServiceSingleDeploymentsResults -> ServiceSingleDeploymentResult*
> > > > > *ServiceFullDeploymentsResults -> ServiceFullDeploymentResult*
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's do this as the final step of the code review to avoid
> repeated
> > > > > renaming.
> > > > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 15:21, Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhani...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Alexey,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't see any problem in letting services work on a deactivated
> > > cluster.
> > > > > > All services need is discovery messages and compute tasks.
> > > > > > Both of these features are available at all times.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But it should be configurable. Services may need caches for their
> > > work,
> > > > > > so it's better to undeploy such services on cluster deactivation.
> > > > > > We may introduce a new property in ServiceConfiguration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think, this topic deserves a separate discussion.
> > > > > > Could you start another thread?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 6 дек. 2018 г. в 13:27, Alexey Kuznetsov <
> akuznet...@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Vyacheslav!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm thinking about to use Services API to implement Web Agent
> as a
> > > cluster
> > > > > > > singleton service.
> > > > > > > It will improve Web Console UX, because it will not needed to
> start
> > > > > > > separate java program.
> > > > > > > Just start cluster with Web agent enabled on cluster
> configuration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But in order to do this, I need that services should:
> > > > > > > 1) Work when cluster NOT ACTIVE.
> > > > > > > 2) Auto restart with cluster (when cluster was restarted).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could we support mentioned features on "Service Grid redesign -
> > > phase 2" ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please let me know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>
