ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Ignite 2.0 tasks/roadmap
Date Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:35:23 GMT
Yakov, I am not sure we fixed it. Plus sometimes we encode missing value as
-1, so it is written as 4 bytes still.

Dmitry, to my knowledge Unsafe will be available only when special VM flag
is set. It is not a problem for ignite.sh, but may cause usability issues
when running in embedded mode. Moreover, some methods will be removed from
Unsafe, e.g. monitorEnter(). So I doubt we even compilable with Java 9 now.

14 июля 2016 г. 16:27 пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <
dsetrakyan@apache.org> написал:

> Vova, why Unsafe removal? To my knowledge, Unsafe still remains in Java 9,
> no?
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Several points from my side:
> > 1) Java 9 support - Unsafe removal, modules, etc..
> > 2) Rework our "messages" subsystem - we always read/write all fields,
> thus
> > transferring lots of zeros without any reason. We should support
> branching.
> > 3) Review all messages (especially cache, double-especially - atomic) in
> > terms of performance. Most probably we will refactor/split some of them.
> >
> > 14 июля 2016 г. 12:06 пользователь "Yakov Zhdanov" <yzhdanov@apache.org>
> > написал:
> >
> > > Alex, a lot of excitement for Ignite-2.0 from my side! =)
> > >
> > > I agree with your points and I will take a close look at them in the
> > > nearest future.
> > >
> > > Here are some suggestions from me.
> > >
> > > I don't remember if I shared my thoughts on moving to single TCP port
> per
> > > node. So, I filed a new ticket -
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3480. If we already have
> > > another one let's merge them.
> > >
> > > I would also think over removing communication SPI and discovery SPI
> and
> > > introducing communication and discovery processors instead. In some
> > places
> > > Ignite pretty much relies on internal implementation details of these
> > SPIs
> > > which makes implementation of any other SPI pretty complex task. Btw,
> did
> > > anyone did that? Removing SPIs will allow us to cleanup the code and
> use
> > > common abstractions and logic.
> > >
> > > I will give some more ideas going forward.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> > > 2016-07-14 4:43 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >:
> > >
> > > > So, no excitement about Ignite 2.0? :)
> > > >
> > > > I went ahead and created a 2.0 version in Ignite Jira, and included
> the
> > > > following tickets so far based on the chance that this ticket will
> > > require
> > > > breaking changes in APIs/Configuration
> > > >  - IGNITE-3469 - Get rid of deprecated APIs and code
> > > >  - IGNTIE-3477 - Rework offheap storage
> > > >  - IGNITE-3478 - Transactional SQL
> > > >  - IGNITE-1605 - Provide stronger data loss check
> > > >  - IGNITE-3306 - Extend IgniteCluster interface with the methods to
> > send
> > > > and receive custom discovery events
> > > >
> > > > I believe that there are many more changes that we wanted to make but
> > > > delayed because they would break binary compatibility, so if you have
> > > > something in mind - it's time to create a ticket or assign it to 2.0
> if
> > > it
> > > > exists. It's good to know the scope of work.
> > > >
> > > > Also, it would be great if you review/comment the above-mentioned
> > > tickets.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > AG
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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