Hello! This module has two obvious downsides:
- It's LGPL. - It can only schedule locally. We could fix 1) by using other implementation, but given 2) this no longer sounds feasible. If someone wants to use local scheduler, why not just use it directly? Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пт, 20 дек. 2019 г. в 10:26, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com>: > Denis, > > > The API is definitely used with even higher demand for the last months > (overall the demand is comparable to Ignite Kafka and ML). See attachment. > I do not see the attachement. Where can I find it? > > чт, 19 дек. 2019 г. в 20:01, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > The API is definitely used with even higher demand for the last months > (overall the demand is comparable to Ignite Kafka and ML). See attachment. > > > > If the module has some problems let's discuss them separately and see > how to approach first. Do we have a list of the issues tracked anywhere? > > > > > > - > > Denis > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:52 AM Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Ivan, > >> > >> IGFS and Hadoop Accelerator had inherent architectural flaws - the vast > >> majority of users who tried to use these features failed to achieve > >> expected results. And yes, at the same time the interest was very high, > so > >> we really needed to take action :) > >> > >> Scheduler module, on the other hand, works as expected and might be > used by > >> someone. There is no need to hurry. > >> > >> It probably makes sense to deprecate the functionality in 2.8 so that > users > >> are aware of upcoming removal. But the removal itself should happen in > the > >> major release. > >> > >> -Val > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:09 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > Guys, > >> > > >> > Why some of us are so critical regarding the subject? If I recall > >> > correctly we decided to drop IGFS and Hadoop support before 2.8 > >> > without much debate. And it was a feature users were interested in. I > >> > never saw an interest to IgniteSchedule. My statistics is based on our > >> > User mailing list. > >> > > >> > чт, 19 дек. 2019 г. в 11:00, Alexey Kuznetsov <akuznet...@apache.org > >: > >> > > > >> > > I will vote "+1" for 3.0 > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:57 AM Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > My Vote was for 3.0 > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:44 AM Valentin Kulichenko < > >> > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Is this suggested for 3.0 or 2.8? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I tend to agree with Alexey - API compatibility should be > preserved > >> > > > within > >> > > > > a major version. I would oppose doing such a change in 2.x. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > If this is planned for 3.0, then it's a definite +1 from me. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > -Val > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:34 PM Alexey Kuznetsov < > >> > akuznet...@apache.org > >> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi! > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > What if some users already using this module? > >> > > > > > What they should do? Rewrite code? > >> > > > > > I do not think it is a good idea. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > My "-1" here. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:53 AM Anton Vinogradov < > a...@apache.org> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > ignite-schedule does not look to be properly located or > useful. > >> > > > > > > My +1 here. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:35 AM Ivan Pavlukhin < > >> > vololo...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ilya, > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I think it is a good initiative! Do we really need to keep > >> > > > > > > > run/callLocall methods at all? > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ср, 18 дек. 2019 г. в 17:59, Ilya Kasnacheev < > il...@apache.org > >> > >: > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hello! > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Since 2.8 is branched, I want to initiate the discussion > >> > about > >> > > > > > removal > >> > > > > > > of > >> > > > > > > > > ignite-schedule module. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > My plan as follows: > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Remove ignite-schedule module entirely. > >> > > > > > > > > Move runLocal and callLocal methods from > IgniteScheduler to > >> > > > > > > > IgniteCompute. > >> > > > > > > > > Delete IgniteScheduler interface with its remaining > >> > > > scheduleLocal() > >> > > > > > > > methods. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Rationale: Ignite is not a tool for local scheduling, > >> > > > > IgniteScheduler > >> > > > > > > > does > >> > > > > > > > > not provide any means of remote scheduling, and I don't > think > >> > > > > anybody > >> > > > > > > is > >> > > > > > > > > using that (especially since ignite-schedule is > unpublished > >> > LGPL > >> > > > > > > module). > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I would like to hear opinions as well as positive and > >> > negative > >> > > > > votes > >> > > > > > > > > towards this. If I won't see any activity, I will go > forward > >> > with > >> > > > > > JIRA > >> > > > > > > > > issue. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Previous discussion: > >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5565 > >> > > > > > > > > We tried to move it to Quartz but it changed semantics > in > >> > some > >> > > > > ways. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Regards, > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > > > Best regards, > >> > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Alexey Kuznetsov > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Best regards, > >> > Ivan Pavlukhin > >> > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin >
