Igor, > It is proposed to add flag to every response, that shows whether the Affinity Topology Version of the cluster has changed since the last request from the client. I propose to keep this flag. So no need for periodic checks. Makes sense?
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 4:45 PM Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote: > Pavel, > > This will require from client to send this new request periodically, I'm > not > sure this will make clients simpler. Anyway, let's discuss it. > > Vladimir, > > With current proposal, we will have affinity info in message header. > > Best Regards, > Igor > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:01 AM Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Igor, > > > > I think that "Cache Partitions Request" should contain affinity topology > > version. Otherwise we do not know what distribution is returned - the one > > we expected, or some newer one. The latter may happen in case topology > > changed or late affinity assignment happened between server response and > > subsequent client partitions request. > > > > Vladimir. > > > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:08 PM Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hello guys, > > > > > > I've updated IEP page [1] describing proposed solution in more details > > and > > > proposing some changes for a protocol. > > > > > > Please, take a look and let me know what you think. > > > > > > [1] - > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-23%3A+Best+Effort+Affinity+for+thin+clients > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Igor > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:54 AM Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Denis, > > > > > > > > Yes, in principle we can extend it. We are going to implement it in > > > > subsequent phases of this IEP. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:30 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Feel that this functionality can be extended to the automatic > > > > reconnect, > > > > > > can't it? Presently we require to provide a static list of IPs to > > be > > > > used > > > > > > at a reconnect time. By having a partition map of all the nodes, > > the > > > > thin > > > > > > client should be able to automate this piece. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure if static IP list can be avoided. What Igor is suggesting > is > > > > that > > > > > we try to pick the best node out of the static IP list. > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
