I think using the "default" convention is fine. We don't *have to*
support multi-clustered set-up if we think it's too troublesome.
2016-03-08 13:28 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero :
> On 8 March 2016 at 12:04, Gunnar Morling wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Good question, I have been wondering the same.
>>
>> I th
On 8 March 2016 at 12:04, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Good question, I have been wondering the same.
>
> I think we could even support this 5.6, essentially it's just a matter
> of structuring the properties and how we read them. I basically
> started with a single cluster to get to something
Hi,
Good question, I have been wondering the same.
I think we could even support this 5.6, essentially it's just a matter
of structuring the properties and how we read them. I basically
started with a single cluster to get to something working more
quickly, but it shouldn't take long to change th
Today our experiments are assuming we're connecting to a single
Elasticsearch cluster: one hostname to configure, etc..
I think this is an acceptable limitation for version 5.6 (our first
stable milestone to support this integration) but I'm wondering if we
should document it as a temporary limita
