Vladimir, As far as the client, I don't think we need to call it experimental. An "experimental" feature sounds like it might explode if you come close :)
How about we have client protocol versions instead? Then each Ignite release can announce which protocol versions it is compatible with. D. On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]> wrote: > Igniters, > > I would propose to add a concept of "experimental feature". Quite often we > face a situation when newly created feature has not-so-good API, or tested > insufficiently, etc.. Many vendors employ a concept of so-called > "experimental" features to mitigate the risks. Examples I am aware of: > Hadoop, Kotlin. > > When feature is marked as experimental, there is no guarantees for API and > binary compatibility, neither it implies that the feature is bug-free. On > the other hand, users might start using the feature right away and provide > valuable feedback. > > Let's add such concept to our product, and it would make it much better! > > First candidate for this marker is our newly developed thin client. We put > a lot efforts to make it extensible in future, but I doubt it is possible > to take in count everything at once. Instead, I would rather release it as > "experimantel" in the scope of 2.3, and then finalize it as a part of 2.4 > based on user's feedback. > > What do you think? > > Vladimir. >
