ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Service grid redesign
Date Thu, 09 Aug 2018 14:47:29 GMT
Guys,

I thought this was about automatic service redeployment, which should have
been a part of the current IEP, no? Can you please clarify?

D.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhanikov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Vyacheslav,
>
> It looks like an overcomplication to me.
> Could you describe a case, that can be solved using versioning, but not
> naming?
>
> Denis
>
> чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:56, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com>:
>
> > Denis, it's not about different users services implementations.
> >
> > A real use case is user's services API versioning which is being used
> > widely t in SOAP/REST microservices infrastructure.
> >
> > In my opinion, it is about services with the same name and the same
> > full class name, but different classes versions for example in
> > different classloaders.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 PM Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhanikov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think, that we really need this feature.
> > > It seems to me, that if you want to use a different implementation of a
> > > service, you can assign a different name to it.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > >
> > > > > I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1].
> > > > >
> > > > > It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement this
> > > > > feature we should build a base in the first iteration of IEP-17
> > > > > because of change messages formats.
> > > > >
> > > > > In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to host
> > > > > services with the same name, but with different class/version, we
> > > > > should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s lifecycle
> instead
> > > > > of service’s name.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > My only concern would be on the usability side. Is user going to have
> > to
> > > > deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally?
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message