ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pavel Petroshenko <pa...@petroshenko.com>
Subject Re: Node.js Thin Client @ npmjs
Date Fri, 25 May 2018 18:26:10 GMT
Hi Dmitriy,

Agree, your proposal makes a lot of sense.

p.

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
wrote:

> I generally think that as a community we need to start taking an approach
> of separate thin client releases. This goes for Java, .NET, JDBC, ODBC,
> Node.JS, etc...
>
> We can still host them in the same Ignite repo, but they should be a
> separate download. Of course, they should be included in the overall Ignite
> distribution as well.
>
> Node.JS client could be the first one to take this approach. We can then
> migrate others as well.
>
> Denis, Pavel, what do you think?
>
> D.
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Pavel Petroshenko <pavel@petroshenko.com>
> wrote:
>
> > As Denis said, there is no need to download the entire Ignite repo to
> > install the client. Once published the client is going to be installed by
> > users with a command:
> >
> > npm install -g apache-ignite-client
> >
> > The sources are going to be distributed as a part of the ignite
> repository,
> > yes. But in general, release and installation process for the client and
> > the Ignite technically are completely independent.
> >
> > And moreover: if there is a bug, especially critical, found in the client
> > we shouldn't wait for the next Ignite to be released to get it fixed. We
> > should be flexible enough to push the fixes and release the clients'
> > updates independently at any point in time.
> >
> > Having an independent release/versioning scheme would allow the clients
> to
> > get bug-fixes (minor version update) or nonbreaking feature-adds or
> > improvements (medium version update) between major Ignite releases
> > (potentially breaking changes and thus - the major version update). But
> the
> > client and the Ignite versions mapping might be tricky and should be
> > clearly documented.
> >
> > So there are pros and cons.
> >
> > But I believe the release policy should be consistent across all the Thin
> > clients (I'm not talking about the "native" or Thick ones, which heavily
> > depend on the Ignite internals and are a different story).
> >
> > p.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Once the client is built it will be uploaded to the npmjs repository,
> > > right? So, a JS developer can download the client from there without
> > > touching the whole Ignite binary release.
> > >
> > > However, those who download the whole Ignite binary distribution will
> > find
> > > node.js there (as well as .NET, C++, JDBC and ODBC).
> > >
> > > --
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Pavel Petroshenko <
> > > pavel@petroshenko.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Fair enough. Consistency with the other clients is a good argument.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Pavel, I would discuss it a bit more. Does it really make sense for a
> > > > node.js user to download the whole Ignite distribution just to get a
> > > > node.js client?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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