> You forget about reactive api I don't think we need an explicit reactive API in the core library. Observable.fromFuture bridges async to Rx easily:
Observable.fromFuture(client.putAsync(k, v)).flatMap(...) Same story with Kotlin, it works with CompletableFuture. On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 1:31 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> wrote: > You forget about reactive api :) > > And whats a problem with discocerability? > > var syncApi = client.sync(); > syncApi.put(k, v); > > var rxApi = client.reactive(); > rxApi.put(k,v).flatMap(res -> ....); > > And sync, async and reactive is not enough, it is good idea to support > kotlin coroutines also :) > > пт, 9 июл. 2021 г., 13:26 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > Ivan D., > > > > > container of properties > > > > What is a container of properties? > > As a user, I want a simple way to start a client and perform operations. > > > > I don't want anything confusing and complicated like Netty Bootstrap. > There > > might be a reason for Netty to be this way - it is a low-level library. > But > > Ignite is not. > > > > > > > separate facades for sync, async > > > > Strongly disagree with this idea. It hurts API discoverability. > > As a user, in my IDE I type "igniteTable.get" and see a list of > suggestions > > like get, getAsync, getAndPut, getAndPutAsync. > > I don't want to have a separate interface and a separate variable to deal > > with sync and async methods. > > > > Not sure what's the problem with documentation - can you elaborate > please? > > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 12:51 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Pavel, actually I suggests to separate container of properties(client > in > > > lettuce) and actual connection or connections (stateful connection in > > > lettuce). Actual connection initialization could be sync or async, it > > > doesn't matter. It can be Ignition#startClient or > > > Ignition#startClientAsync, but I'd prefer lettuce approach > > > > > > > > > Also, it would be great to have separate facades for sync, async and > > > reactive api. Mixing all of them in one interface is a documentation > > > nightmare. > > > > > > пт, 9 июл. 2021 г., 11:55 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > Ivan P., Ivan D., > > > > > > > > I don't think it makes sense to separate IgniteConnection and > > > IgniteClient > > > > like Lettuce does, > > > > because IgniteClient will maintain connections to multiple server > nodes > > > > automatically, > > > > and the number of connections can grow and shrink dynamically. > > > > > > > > This is required to support dynamic clusters together with partition > > > > awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not to make async variant of connection > > > > > > > > Ignite API will (eventually) have both sync and async variants of > every > > > > method, where applicable, > > > > including the method that connects the client to the cluster. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 9:55 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
