Based on the feedback I will update the wiki later today to document that LevelDB is being deprecated and no longer is recommended or supported.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > > > > > > > > >
