Hello! Also, let's not add IGNITE_ settings for options that can reasonably be configured from IgniteConfiguration. Let's keep it for very edge cases.
Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пн, 26 авг. 2019 г. в 12:27, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: > Hello! > > Do we still need to separate client connector configuration from thin > connector configuration from ODBC connector configuration? > > I think this is a bad practice: For example, people often turn on SSL or > auth on just a subset of connectors, think they are secure, when in fact > they still have unsecured connector around (e.g. ODBC) and their data is > not protected at all. > > It may solve some specific issue that you are facing, but for newcomers to > project it is a drawback. I think we should seek to not add connector > configurations anymore. > > Regards, > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > пт, 23 авг. 2019 г. в 20:49, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com>: > >> Pavel, >> >> ClientConnectorConfiguration is related to JDBC, ODBC and thin clients, >> the >> new property only related to thin clients. If we put the new property >> directly into ClientConnectorConfiguration, someone might think that it >> also affects JDBC and ODBC. >> >> пт, 23 авг. 2019 г. в 19:59, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: >> >> > Igor, Alex, >> > >> > Not sure I agree with this: ThinClientConfiguration inside >> > ClientConnectorConfiguration. >> > Very confusing IMO, because ClientConnectorConfiguration is already >> related >> > to thin clients only. >> > >> > Why not put the new property directly into ClientConnectorConfiguration? >> > >> >
