Val, I have already gave examples -- lettuce, a very performant and modern redis java client
I can duplicate links again https://lettuce.io/core/release/api/io/lettuce/core/RedisClient.html https://lettuce.io/core/release/api/io/lettuce/core/api/StatefulRedisConnection.html https://www.baeldung.com/java-redis-lettuce чт, 8 июл. 2021 г., 23:47 Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com >: > Ivan, > > Can you please clarify what you mean by "separate creation of client and > connection"? Can you give an example? > > -Val > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 12:53 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I'm sorry, but why we didn't consider to separate creation of Client and > > connection? Why not to make async variant of connection? See for example > > [1] > > [1] --- https://lettuce.io/core/release/api/index.html > > > > > > чт, 8 июл. 2021 г., 09:50 Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > > > Val, > > > > > > So the plan is: > > > > > > - Remove Ignition#start from the public API > > > - Make Ignition a class, not an interface > > > - Add static Ignition#startClient > > > > > > Sounds good? > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 6:13 AM Valentin Kulichenko < > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Ivan, > > > > > > > > Ignition IS the entry point to Ignite, so I'm not sure I got your > point > > > :) > > > > Where is the contradiction? > > > > > > > > Either way, please feel free to give your suggestions for an > > alternative > > > > name if you have any. > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:56 PM Ivan Pavlukhina <vololo...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > A side note. Actually “Ignition” naming always confused me. I think > > > about > > > > > it as some fancy named API entry point for Ignite. Perhaps it is a > > good > > > > > moment to revisit naming. > > > > > > > > > > > On 8 Jul 2021, at 07:09, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Pavel, > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we will need the pure embedded mode, but we still > > need > > > to > > > > > be > > > > > > able to access the API from compute and services. That said, > there > > > are > > > > > two > > > > > > usages of the 'Ignite' API: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Remote, via the binary protocol. > > > > > > 2. Local - needed for compute and services. (This is how it > works > > > > now.) > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that the API should be the same, and there should be a > > > > unified > > > > > > access point. Ignition seems to be a good candidate for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignition#start should eventually be removed from the public API. > It > > > is > > > > > > currently there only because we don't have the thin client yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 5:47 AM Pavel Tupitsyn < > > ptupit...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Igniters, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I have a few questions regarding server node startup and thin > > > clients. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> State of things: > > > > > >> - Server nodes will be started with 'ignite run' from CLI [1] > > > > > >> - ignite-api module represents our public API > > > > > >> - ignite-api has Ignition interface to start server nodes > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Questions: > > > > > >> - What's the idea behind Ignition interface in the public API? > Are > > > we > > > > > going > > > > > >> to have an "embedded mode" where servers can be started from > > code? I > > > > > >> thought this was not planned. > > > > > >> - How are users supposed to retrieve an instance of the Ignition > > > > > interface? > > > > > >> - Are there any plans to start thin clients from Ignition > > interface, > > > > or > > > > > >> should we have a separate way of doing this? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> [1] > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=158873958 > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
