> 1) Let's have separate connection string "jdbc:ignite:*thin*://" to avoid > any confusion and interference with old drivers.
I would use “jdbc:ignite://“ for the newest driver not forcing to use “thin” in the connection string. I think it’s fine to break the compatibility there since “jdbc:ignite://“ is used by REST based driver. — Denis > On May 24, 2017, at 5:51 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: > > Igniters, > > Currently we have two JDBC drivers: > v1 - old thin driver, deprecated, works over GridClient > v2 - fat driver, works over Ignite started in "client" mode. > > Both of them have the same connection string "jdbc:ignite://" > > Now we are working on new thin driver. It will use almost the same protocol > as current ODBC driver, and will require only single port to be opened. > Also this driver will not be coupled to particular cache. Now I am thinking > on how to expose it to through public API. My considerations: > > 1) Let's have separate connection string "jdbc:ignite:*thin*://" to avoid > any confusion and interference with old drivers. > > 2) Let's rename (actually deprecate + duplicate) OdbcConfiguration to > SqlListenerConfiguration. This is where users will define port and other > server-side parameters. It will be configurable through > IgniteConfiguration.sqlListenerConfiguration. > I think "listener" is a good term here, as it is also used in conventional > RDBMS, such as Oracle. > > 3) We need to decide whether to start listener service by default or not. > Tough question. On the one hand, it is convenient if any Ignite node will > be able to serve SQL requests with no additional configuration. On the > other hand, it consumes resources and threads (GridNioServer), and normally > users will have limited set of nodes which will serve user requests. For > this reason I would not start it by default in the first place. > > Please share your thoughts, especially about p.2 since I am in great doubts > about it. > > Vladimir.
