Hi Vyacheslav, WDYT about applicability of PDS compatibiltiy framework for thin clients?
Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov ср, 6 июн. 2018 г. в 13:45, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > Hi Nikolay, > > Huge +1 for automated compatibility tests. Luckily, we already did that for > persistence, so probably we can re-use some infrastructure from there. > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > +1 From me. > > > > As I wrote in previous mail-threads, > > I think we need to create test framework to be able to test compatibility > > for all clients we have. > > > > AFAIK, currently, there is no possibility to automatically check > > compatibility. > > > > В Ср, 06/06/2018 в 11:39 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет: > > > Igniters, > > > > > > I'd like to discuss once again our compatibility policy for thin > clients > > > (.JDBC, ODBC, .NET, Java, etc.). We have no clear rules for now, so > let's > > > try to come to agreement. > > > > > > Normally database vendors work as follows: > > > 1) There is a set of currently supported database versions > > > 2) There is a set of currently supported JDBC/ODBC drivers > > > 3) Every supported driver can work with every supported database (with > > > little exclusions to this rule). > > > > > > That is, they are both backward and forward compatible. I can take > latest > > > Oracle's JDBC and some ancient Oracle version, and it will work, unless > > > this version reached EOL and is no longer supported. And vice versa - > new > > > database, old driver, all is fine. > > > > > > This is ideal scheme which I'd like to see in Ignite, but: > > > 1) Our protocol is still relatively young and evolve rapidly > > > 2) AI does not have any maintenance releases, so we cannot define which > > > version is supported and which is not. > > > 3) > > > > > > I'd like to propose the following compatibility policy: > > > 1) Maintain forward and backward compatibility between two nearest > minor > > > releases only. E.g. 2.5 can work with 2.4, 2.6 with 2.5, etc. > > > 2) Think of more strict compatibility rules in AI 3.0 because at this > > point > > > our protocol will be stable enough. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Vladimir. > > >
