ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anton Vinogradov ...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Ignite 3.0 and to be removed list
Date Mon, 01 Jul 2019 08:17:38 GMT
+1 to email survey with following types of votes
- silence (agree with all proposed removals)
- we have to keep XXX because ...

As a result, will gain lists
"to be removed" - no one objected
"can be removed" - single objection
"should be kept" - multi objections

Denis or Dmitry Pavlov, could you please lead this thread?

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 12:27 AM Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org> wrote:

> Alex,
>
> I would do an email survey to hear an opinion of why someone believes a
> feature A has to stay. It makes sense to ask about the APIs to be removed
> as well as integrations to go out of community support [1] in the same
> thread.
>
> Has everyone expressed an opinion? If yes, I can go ahead and format the
> wishlist page and make it structured for the user thread.
>
> [1]
>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Ignite-Modularization-td42486.html
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:54 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Anton, good point.
> >
> > Do you have any idea how we can keep track of the voting? Should we
> launch
> > a google survey or survey monkey? Voting by email?
> >
> > пт, 28 июн. 2019 г. в 11:24, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Alexey,
> > >
> > > Thank's for keeping an eye on page updates.
> > > Near Caches is not a bad feature, but it should be used with caution.
> > > At least we have to explain how it works on readme.io, why and when it
> > > should be used because usage can drop the performance instead of
> > increasing
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I added near caches because I never heard someone used them
> > > meaningfully, not like a silver bullet.
> > > So, that's just a proposal :)
> > >
> > > Also, I'd like to propose to have some voting about full list later to
> > gain
> > > "must be removed", "can be removed" and "should be kept" lists.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:03 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anton,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to pull-up the discussion regarding the near caches - I
> > > cannot
> > > > agree this is a feature that needs to be removed. Near caches provide
> > > > significant read performance improvements and, to the best of my
> > > knowledge,
> > > > are used in several cases in production. Can you elaborate on the
> > > > shortcomings you faced? Maybe we can improve both internal code and
> > user
> > > > experience?
> > > >
> > > > пт, 21 июн. 2019 г. в 10:42, Dmitry Melnichuk <
> > > > dmitry.melnichuk@nobitlost.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitry,
> > > > > As a Python thin client developer, I think that separate repository
> > is
> > > > > a truly great idea!
> > > > > On Tue, 2019-06-18 at 21:29 +0300, Dmitriy Pavlov wrote:
> > > > > > - Move to separate repositories: thin clients (at least non-Java
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ones)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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