Yes this is a breaking change however it addresses a real problem. I was going to pick up the ticket had someone not already fixed this. Thanks for taking care of this. For what it's worth, the original "bug" causes more problems than any breaking change would to fix it. Also Valentin's note about creating multiple IgniteContexts, that doesn't seem to work either if the configuration is different.
Would love to see this merged. - Ahmad On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < [email protected]> wrote: > I think we should change it anyway, because it looks like each new user of > IgniteRDD is confused by this issue. Basically, we require to create > separate IgniteContext for each IgniteRDD, which is counterintuitive and is > not consistent with Spark APIs. > > Yes, the upgrade to the next version of Ignite will require a minor code > change for existing users, but the current API is wrong and I think we > should fix it. > > Any other opinions? > > -Val > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Alexey Goncharuk < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > The PR looks good to me. There is one concern - even though the type > > parameters were placed to IgniteContext by mistake, removing them will > > break backward compatibility. Are we ok with that? > > > > Val, can you comment? > > > > 2016-05-21 8:32 GMT-07:00 MaBiao <[email protected]>: > > > > > @agoncharuk <https://github.com/agoncharuk> Would you please help me > to > > > review this PR? > > > > > > — > > > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > > > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub > > > <https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/740#issuecomment-220784081> > > > > > > -- Ahmad Alkilani Big Data Architect Big Data Services|Platform Services Operations|DreamWorks Animation Office 818.69*5.3374*
