Alexey. I want to share a thought (just don't drop it out in one moment :) ).
Do we really need "client nodes"? We have thin client protocol that is a very convenient point to interact with Ignite. So, why, we need one more entity and work mode such as "client node"? From my point of view, client nodes were required in the time without a thin client. Now, we have it. Let's simplify Ignite codebase and drop client nodes! How does it sound? В Пн, 17/06/2019 в 15:52 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: > Nikolay, > > Local caches and scalar are already in the list :) Added the outdated > metrics point. > > пн, 17 июн. 2019 г. в 15:32, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>: > > > * Scalar. > > * LOCAL caches. > > * Deprecated metrics. > > > > В Пн, 17/06/2019 в 15:18 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: > > > Igniters, > > > > > > Even though we are still planning the Ignite 2.8 release, I would like to > > > kick-off a discussion related to Ignite 3.0, because the efforts for AI > > > > 3.0 > > > will be significantly larger than for AI 2.8, better to start early. > > > > > > As a first step, I would like to discuss the list of things to be removed > > > in Ignite 3.0 (partially this thread is inspired by Denis Magda's IGFS > > > removal thread). I've separated all to-be-removed points from existing > > > Ignite 3.0 wishlist [1] to a dedicated block and also added a few more > > > things that look right to be dropped. > > > > > > Please share your thoughts, probably, there are more outdated things we > > > need to add to the wishlist. > > > > > > As a side question: I think it makes sense to create tickets for such > > > improvements, how do we track them. Will the 3.0 version suffice or > > > > should > > > we add a separate label?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
