makes sense to me. keep the focus on the current default store. On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 at 11:14 Richard Kettelerij <richardkettele...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding). > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Jim Gomes <jgo...@apache.org> wrote: > > > No objections. I was never clear on what advantages LevelDB was supposed > to > > offer anyway. > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016, 3:45 AM Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Seems like a good idea to me. > > > > > > On 15 November 2016 at 11:45, Christopher Shannon > > > <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating > > > LevelDB > > > > in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no > > > longer > > > > recommended. We can leave it in the code base for people who are > still > > > > using it but discourage its use. > > > > > > > > The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where > > bugs > > > > are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to > be > > > > several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I > don't > > > > think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted > > > out. > > > > Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes > ignored. > > > > > > > > Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus > > should > > > > be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a > > replicated > > > > store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system > > > > master/slave setup. > > > > > >
