Ilya, This will break backward compatibility and probably protocol, and this is not something we should discuss in the context of this specific task. More like this is a topic for 3.0 wishlist.
Best Regards, Igor On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:28 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > >> > > >> > > >
