I hear you. Not trying to shoehorn a change in w/CEP-12, just thinking through "how complex should it be to rip out the chronicle format, insert some other well defined and well known, and handle log rolling ourselves". My preference (which I didn't indicate earlier) would be to have that done independently.
There a reason we can't move forward with CEP-12 w/out addressing the chronicle stuff? i.e. > I would like to have this resolved because there is CEP-12 I plan to deliver > and I hit this and I do not want to base that work on something we might > eventually abandon. Why would CEP-12 be heavily coupled with chronicle? I would assume you'd be able to make light use of the existing logging + log rolling, and then someone else could come along and easily rip out chronicle and the rolling and add in a different one with minimal code changes? On Mon, Sep 30, 2024, at 9:15 AM, Štefan Miklošovič wrote: > I don't understand why CEP-12 should be a vehicle for introducing changes > like that. That is something totally unrelated. I am not going to be the one > to implement anything beyond CEP-12 and I am not the one who is going to > replace it either so if we make it a hard requirement for CEP-12 then CEP-12 > as it is will never be introduced. Just want to be clear about that. > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 3:09 PM Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 7:55 AM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > I'd strongly support either rolling the format change into the CEP-12 >> > proposal or having another CEP for introducing protobuf, spark, etc - some >> > kind of more broadly adopted format, and removing chronicle from our stack. >> >> +1, I too would strongly support an open format and removing chronicle. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Brandon
