ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Thin clients compatibility policy
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2018 15:24:37 GMT
Igniters,

Let's discuss how to implement tests in separate thread. At this point it
is more important to agree on compatibility policies.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello, Igniters!
>
> I am not familiar with the Ignite's thin client.
>
> I'd suggest defining tests scenarios first, to understand what we need
> for testing.
>
> For example, our Compatibility Framework may be used for the following
> scenario:
> 1. Start node of a previously released version in separate JVM and fill
> data;
> 2. Start thin client of an actual version in local JVM then read and
> validate data;
>
> Opposite scenario with new nodes and previously released thin clients
> is possible too, but such tests will look difficult. If we need such
> scenarios, may be required to extend frameworks API to simplify
> coding.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Vyacheslav,
> >
> > WDYT about applicability of PDS compatibiltiy framework for thin clients?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmitriy Pavlov
> >
> > ср, 6 июн. 2018 г. в 13:45, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>:
> >>
> >> Hi Nikolay,
> >>
> >> Huge +1 for automated compatibility tests. Luckily, we already did that
> >> for
> >> persistence, so probably we can re-use some infrastructure from there.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > +1 From me.
> >> >
> >> > As I wrote in previous mail-threads,
> >> > I think we need to create test framework to be able to test
> >> > compatibility
> >> > for all clients we have.
> >> >
> >> > AFAIK, currently, there is no possibility to automatically check
> >> > compatibility.
> >> >
> >> > В Ср, 06/06/2018 в 11:39 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет:
> >> > > Igniters,
> >> > >
> >> > > I'd like to discuss once again our compatibility policy for thin
> >> > > clients
> >> > > (.JDBC, ODBC, .NET, Java, etc.). We have no clear rules for now, so
> >> > > let's
> >> > > try to come to agreement.
> >> > >
> >> > > Normally database vendors work as follows:
> >> > > 1) There is a set of currently supported database versions
> >> > > 2) There is a set of currently supported JDBC/ODBC drivers
> >> > > 3) Every supported driver can work with every supported database
> (with
> >> > > little exclusions to this rule).
> >> > >
> >> > > That is, they are both backward and forward compatible. I can take
> >> > > latest
> >> > > Oracle's JDBC and some ancient Oracle version, and it will work,
> >> > > unless
> >> > > this version reached EOL and is no longer supported. And vice versa
> -
> >> > > new
> >> > > database, old driver, all is fine.
> >> > >
> >> > > This is ideal scheme which I'd like to see in Ignite, but:
> >> > > 1) Our protocol is still relatively young and evolve rapidly
> >> > > 2) AI does not have any maintenance releases, so we cannot define
> >> > > which
> >> > > version is supported and which is not.
> >> > > 3)
> >> > >
> >> > > I'd like to propose the following compatibility policy:
> >> > > 1) Maintain forward and backward compatibility between two nearest
> >> > > minor
> >> > > releases only. E.g. 2.5 can work with 2.4, 2.6 with 2.5, etc.
> >> > > 2) Think of more strict compatibility rules in AI 3.0 because at
> this
> >> > point
> >> > > our protocol will be stable enough.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thoughts?
> >> > >
> >> > > Vladimir.
> >> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>

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