Personally I believe that public API still can be helpful, as it gives user an ability to check connection in the specific point in time, even if automatic ping is implemented (which is more complex and hard-to-maintain feature by the way).
Not sure there should be "ping" in API though, maybe something more like client.checkConnection(); Best Regards, Igor On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:37 AM Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello guys, > > We've already raised the question about ping requests here [1]. > > I'm not sure about public API, but at least we can have auto-ping as an > internal mechanism. This will be helpful if the client doesn't send any new > requests but only waits for server-side notifications (for example, if the > client subscribed to CQ events). The client can't detect a connection lost > until sending something to the server. Using periodic ping requests this > problem can be solved. > > So, +1 to add ping to the protocol, +0 to expose it to public API. > > [1] > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-44-Thin-Client-Discovery-tp47129p47318.html > > пн, 14 сент. 2020 г. в 10:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > Nikolay, > > > > See the discussion on the user list: > > > > 1. It is not immediately obvious which APIs perform server calls and > which > > don't. > > 2. It is not clear which APIs can cause heavy resource usage on the > server > > side. > > We don't want to stress servers by pinging them. > > cache.size() is an example - it is tempting to use and seems to be > > simple, but actually queries every server node in the cluster. > > > > > dedicated `ping` operation makes our API heavier > > The operation is so trivial that I would not worry about increased > > complexity or future maintenance. > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:17 AM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello, Igor. > > > > > > On the other hand, dedicated `ping` operation makes our API heavier > > > without adding new feature - > > > We can do the same with the other part of the API. > > > > > > Moreover, response to the ping doesn’t mean that SQL or cache query can > > be > > > served. > > > > > > > 14 сент. 2020 г., в 10:08, Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> > > написал(а): > > > > > > > > Николай, > > > > > > > > It looks a little bit hacky to me. I believe SQL drivers usually use > > that > > > > approach > > > > as a workaround because there is no other common way to do that. > > > > > > > > Sure we can recommend users to use cache.size() or anything other > > > > similar way > > > > to ensure the connection is alive, but it still looks like a > workaround > > > to > > > > me. > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Igor > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:16 PM Николай Ижиков <nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hello, Pavel. > > > >> > > > >> SQL drivers usually use “SELECT 1” query to ensure connection is > > alive. > > > >> > > > >> Can we use similar approach? > > > >> > > > >> Отправлено с iPhone > > > >> > > > >>> 13 сент. 2020 г., в 13:26, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > > > >> написал(а): > > > >>> > > > >>> Igniters, > > > >>> > > > >>> There is a feature request for a thin client Ping operation on the > > user > > > >>> list [1]. > > > >>> I think that is a good idea - IgniteClient.ping() will be a > valuable > > > >>> addition. > > > >>> > > > >>> Any objections? > > > >>> > > > >>> [1] > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Feature-request-method-to-test-active-connection-in-Ignite-thin-client-td33985.html > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
