Whats the usage of such API ? Igor can you clarify please ?
>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
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
