Hello!
I think we should name it "core" since we already have ignite-core and it
will be confusing. Maybe we should go full 00s and call it "lite"?
I also think we should keep both .Net and C++. .Net is runnable out of box
which is awesome, and C++ needs building but it is rather small in source
form.
I also suggest a different change to build process. Let's ship C++ with
automake, etc, already run, for all binary packaging options? WDYT? I can
assist in build process tuning.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 17:18, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>:
> Alex,
>
> I'm on your end and support the proposal. Could you also clarify if you
> suggest we keeping or removing C++ and .NET thick clients?
>
> Speaking of the naming, how about titling such packages as 'core' instead
> of 'slim', i.e., 'apache-ignite-core-{version}'?
>
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:17 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > Pavel, I believe these JARs are fully covered by the list of modules
> > specified above.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 14:50, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > I like the idea, current distribution is certainly too big.
> > >
> > > Here is a list of jar files we include in NuGet package:
> > >
> > > cache-api-1.0.0.jar
> > > commons-codec-1.11.jar
> > > commons-logging-1.1.1.jar
> > > h2-1.4.197.jar
> > > ignite-core-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
> > > ignite-indexing-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
> > > ignite-shmem-1.0.0.jar
> > > ignite-spring-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
> > > lucene-analyzers-common-7.4.0.jar
> > > lucene-core-7.4.0.jar
> > > lucene-queryparser-7.4.0.jar
> > > spring-aop-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > > spring-beans-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > > spring-context-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > > spring-core-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > > spring-expression-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > > spring-jdbc-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > > spring-tx-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > >
> > > Those are required for SQL and Spring configs to work properly,
> > > maybe we want to include them into the slim distro as well.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 2:25 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > This is a reasonable idea.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should also drop benchmarks/ directory from that build,
> it's
> > > 60M
> > > > of (potentially vulnerable) JARs that are not needed by an average
> > > > developer's use cases.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 13:10, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to discuss with the community a possibility to create
> > > > > additional 'slim' binary releases and docker images for Apache
> > Ignite.
> > > > The
> > > > > reason is two-fold:
> > > > > * The full set of 3rd party libraries distributed with Apache
> Ignite
> > > > looks
> > > > > too large for me. I know there is an ongoing activity towards more
> > > clear
> > > > > Ignite modularization [1][2][3], but this seems to be quite a long
> > > > process.
> > > > > On the other hand, creating a slim release may give an immediate
> > > benefit
> > > > to
> > > > > the users who are interested in a smaller image. For example,
> > removing
> > > > the
> > > > > benchmarks alone from the binary release saves 80M.
> > > > > * As Ilya Kasnacheev demonstrated [4], the more 3rd party
> libraries
> > we
> > > > > have, the more potential vulnerabilities will show up in audit
> tools.
> > > > This
> > > > > may be a formal barrier for Apache Ignite adoption and moving to
> > > > production
> > > > > for many users. Having a slim image with the minimum number of
> > > > dependencies
> > > > > (yet complete enough to fit the majority of use-cases)
> significantly
> > > > > reduces this risk.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder what community thinks regarding this idea? Given the
> recent
> > > > study
> > > > > of Apache Ignite use-cases, I suggest the following list of modules
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > included to the slim release/image (a subject to discuss, of
> course):
> > > > > * ignite-core
> > > > > * ignite-indexing
> > > > > * ignite-rest-http
> > > > > * ignite-spring
> > > > > * ignite-log4j
> > > > > * ignite-log4j2
> > > > > * ignite-slf4j
> > > > > * ignite-urideploy
> > > > > * ignite-kubernetes
> > > > > * ignite-opencensus
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Ignite-3-0-and-to-be-removed-list-td42330.html
> > > > > [2]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IGNITE-12358-Migrate-ZeroMQ-module-to-ignite-extensions-td45067.html
> > > > > [3]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IGNITE-12361-Migrate-Flume-module-to-ignite-extensions-td45010.html
> > > > > [4]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-8-RELEASE-Time-Scope-Manager-td43616i100.html#a44994
> > > > >
> > > > > --AG
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
