Guys, I've updated the proposal once again [1], so 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 Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 1:05 PM Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote: > Yeah, I'll add it. > > Best Regards, > Igor > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:08 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > to every server >> I did not think of this issue. Now I agree with your approach. >> Can you please add an explanation of this to the IEP? >> >> Thanks! >> >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 2:53 PM Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > Pavel, >> > >> > Yeah, it makes sense, but to me it seems that this approach can lead >> > to more complicated client logic, as it will require to make additional >> > call >> > to every server, that reports affinity topology change. >> > >> > Guys, WDYT? >> > >> > Best Regards, >> > Igor >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:59 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > 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. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
