Hi Konstantin,
Btw, Ignite 2 has also public methods that accepts a Marker.
public void info(String marker, String msg);
Was this part of previous Implementation considered as redundant?
I'm concerned because, despite it might not be needed for Ignite 3
itself, IgniteLogger is also a comp
Hi, Ilya
The presence of thick clients in Ignite 2 slipped my mind, so I was trying to
justify running two data nodes in the same JVM.
Agree, this definitely makes sense for Ignite 2. Thanks for clarification!
--
Regards,
Konstantin Orlov
> On 13 Jun 2023, at 18:06, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
Hello!
Even apart from testing, it is not uncommon to have JVM connect two
different Ignite clusters (two heterogenous ones or one main cluster and
the second "management" small cluster, for example)
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
вт, 13 июн. 2023 г. в 12:46, Konstantin Orlov :
> Hi Ilya,
>
> I
Hi Ilya,
I wonder why do you try to run several Ignite instances in the same JVM in the
first place? Is there any value to do so, apart for testing?
Anyway, with current proposal you could try to configure message routing based
on a thread name: every thread in Ignite 3 should have name which
Hi Konstantin. Thanks for you work.
Despite you proposal is more about public API of logging Ignite
facility, I believe that this thread is the best place to highlight some
topic about internal details of IgniteLogger based on my experience with
Ignite 2
I already tried to initiate a discuss
Hi,
Please review "IEP-107 Logging in Ignite 3” proposal
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-107+Logging+in+Ignite+3
--
Regards,
Konstantin Orlov
