Igniters, Let's discuss how to implement tests in separate thread. At this point it is more important to agree on compatibility policies.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:02 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, Igniters! > > I am not familiar with the Ignite's thin client. > > I'd suggest defining tests scenarios first, to understand what we need > for testing. > > For example, our Compatibility Framework may be used for the following > scenario: > 1. Start node of a previously released version in separate JVM and fill > data; > 2. Start thin client of an actual version in local JVM then read and > validate data; > > Opposite scenario with new nodes and previously released thin clients > is possible too, but such tests will look difficult. If we need such > scenarios, may be required to extend frameworks API to simplify > coding. > > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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. > >> > > > > > -- > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >
