Val, > Ignition IS the entry point to Ignite, so I'm not sure I got your point :) > Either way, please feel free to give your suggestions for an alternative name > if you have any.
Well, it is not only about naming but it is also about code organization. Ivan D. already referenced to alternative API styles (I suppose [1] describes the idea). My main points are: 1. Ignite 3 is a great opportunity to make things better. 2. Using (or reusing) confusing names and entities should be avoided. Another rather straightforward startup/bootstrap approach is used in Netty [2]. For Ignite I would spell it like IgniteServer.Bootstrap and IgniteClient.Bootstrap. Also I suppose that thin client API is more important because much more users will use it. I hope that a lot of Community members will share their ideas. [1] https://www.baeldung.com/java-redis-lettuce [2] https://netty.io/4.0/api/io/netty/bootstrap/ServerBootstrap.html 2021-07-09 1:41 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > Ivan, > > I've seen the link, but I still don't understand what exactly you propose > to change in the current API, and what is your concern. Could you please > clarify? How you think Ignite API should look like? > > -Val > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 2:18 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Val, I have already gave examples -- lettuce, a very performant and >> modern >> redis java client >> >> I can duplicate links again >> https://lettuce.io/core/release/api/io/lettuce/core/RedisClient.html >> >> https://lettuce.io/core/release/api/io/lettuce/core/api/StatefulRedisConnection.html >> https://www.baeldung.com/java-redis-lettuce >> >> чт, 8 июл. 2021 г., 23:47 Valentin Kulichenko < >> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com >> >: >> >> > Ivan, >> > >> > Can you please clarify what you mean by "separate creation of client >> > and >> > connection"? Can you give an example? >> > >> > -Val >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 12:53 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > I'm sorry, but why we didn't consider to separate creation of Client >> and >> > > connection? Why not to make async variant of connection? See for >> example >> > > [1] >> > > [1] --- https://lettuce.io/core/release/api/index.html >> > > >> > > >> > > чт, 8 июл. 2021 г., 09:50 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: >> > > >> > > > Val, >> > > > >> > > > So the plan is: >> > > > >> > > > - Remove Ignition#start from the public API >> > > > - Make Ignition a class, not an interface >> > > > - Add static Ignition#startClient >> > > > >> > > > Sounds good? >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 6:13 AM Valentin Kulichenko < >> > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi Ivan, >> > > > > >> > > > > Ignition IS the entry point to Ignite, so I'm not sure I got your >> > point >> > > > :) >> > > > > Where is the contradiction? >> > > > > >> > > > > Either way, please feel free to give your suggestions for an >> > > alternative >> > > > > name if you have any. >> > > > > >> > > > > -Val >> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:56 PM Ivan Pavlukhina < >> vololo...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > A side note. Actually “Ignition” naming always confused me. I >> think >> > > > about >> > > > > > it as some fancy named API entry point for Ignite. Perhaps it >> > > > > > is >> a >> > > good >> > > > > > moment to revisit naming. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > On 8 Jul 2021, at 07:09, Valentin Kulichenko < >> > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Pavel, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't think we will need the pure embedded mode, but we >> > > > > > > still >> > > need >> > > > to >> > > > > > be >> > > > > > > able to access the API from compute and services. That said, >> > there >> > > > are >> > > > > > two >> > > > > > > usages of the 'Ignite' API: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 1. Remote, via the binary protocol. >> > > > > > > 2. Local - needed for compute and services. (This is how it >> > works >> > > > > now.) >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I believe that the API should be the same, and there should >> > > > > > > be >> a >> > > > > unified >> > > > > > > access point. Ignition seems to be a good candidate for this. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Ignition#start should eventually be removed from the public >> API. >> > It >> > > > is >> > > > > > > currently there only because we don't have the thin client >> > > > > > > yet. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -Val >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 5:47 AM Pavel Tupitsyn < >> > > ptupit...@apache.org >> > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Igniters, >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> I have a few questions regarding server node startup and >> > > > > > >> thin >> > > > clients. >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> State of things: >> > > > > > >> - Server nodes will be started with 'ignite run' from CLI >> > > > > > >> [1] >> > > > > > >> - ignite-api module represents our public API >> > > > > > >> - ignite-api has Ignition interface to start server nodes >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Questions: >> > > > > > >> - What's the idea behind Ignition interface in the public >> > > > > > >> API? >> > Are >> > > > we >> > > > > > going >> > > > > > >> to have an "embedded mode" where servers can be started from >> > > code? I >> > > > > > >> thought this was not planned. >> > > > > > >> - How are users supposed to retrieve an instance of the >> Ignition >> > > > > > interface? >> > > > > > >> - Are there any plans to start thin clients from Ignition >> > > interface, >> > > > > or >> > > > > > >> should we have a separate way of doing this? >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> [1] >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=158873958 >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > -- Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin
