https://repository.apache.org

At least Ignite PMC has access to data.

-
Denis


On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:35 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Can you guide me where these downloads are from? We don't seem to publish
> ignite-schedule to Maven Central since early 1.x.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> сб, 21 дек. 2019 г. в 03:20, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>:
>
> > Ilya, good points, then support the idea of the API removal in 3.0.
> >
> > Ivan, downloaded the screenshot to Google Drive:
> >
> >
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N21N7yqCbeZtCNs1sHvJLiJfHF_Hp0wd/view?usp=sharing
> >
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:09 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > This module has two obvious downsides:
> > >
> > > - It's LGPL.
> > > - It can only schedule locally.
> > >
> > > We could fix 1) by using other implementation, but given 2) this no
> > longer
> > > sounds feasible. If someone wants to use local scheduler, why not just
> > use
> > > it directly?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >
> > >
> > > пт, 20 дек. 2019 г. в 10:26, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Denis,
> > > >
> > > > > The API is definitely used with even higher demand for the last
> > months
> > > > (overall the demand is comparable to Ignite Kafka and ML). See
> > > attachment.
> > > > I do not see the attachement. Where can I find it?
> > > >
> > > > чт, 19 дек. 2019 г. в 20:01, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>:
> > > > >
> > > > > The API is definitely used with even higher demand for the last
> > months
> > > > (overall the demand is comparable to Ignite Kafka and ML). See
> > > attachment.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the module has some problems let's discuss them separately and
> see
> > > > how to approach first. Do we have a list of the issues tracked
> > anywhere?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:52 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ivan,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> IGFS and Hadoop Accelerator had inherent architectural flaws - the
> > > vast
> > > > >> majority of users who tried to use these features failed to
> achieve
> > > > >> expected results. And yes, at the same time the interest was very
> > > high,
> > > > so
> > > > >> we really needed to take action :)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Scheduler module, on the other hand, works as expected and might
> be
> > > > used by
> > > > >> someone. There is no need to hurry.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It probably makes sense to deprecate the functionality in 2.8 so
> > that
> > > > users
> > > > >> are aware of upcoming removal. But the removal itself should
> happen
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > >> major release.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Val
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:09 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > vololo...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Guys,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Why some of us are so critical regarding the subject? If I
> recall
> > > > >> > correctly we decided to drop IGFS and Hadoop support before 2.8
> > > > >> > without much debate. And it was a feature users were interested
> > in.
> > > I
> > > > >> > never saw an interest to IgniteSchedule. My statistics is based
> on
> > > our
> > > > >> > User mailing list.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > чт, 19 дек. 2019 г. в 11:00, Alexey Kuznetsov <
> > > akuznet...@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I will vote "+1" for 3.0
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:57 AM Anton Vinogradov <
> > a...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > My Vote was for 3.0
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:44 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >> > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Is this suggested for 3.0 or 2.8?
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I tend to agree with Alexey - API compatibility should be
> > > > preserved
> > > > >> > > > within
> > > > >> > > > > a major version. I would oppose doing such a change in
> 2.x.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > If this is planned for 3.0, then it's a definite +1 from
> me.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > -Val
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:34 PM Alexey Kuznetsov <
> > > > >> > akuznet...@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Hi!
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > What if some users already using this module?
> > > > >> > > > > > What they should do? Rewrite code?
> > > > >> > > > > > I do not think it is a good idea.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > My "-1" here.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:53 AM Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > a...@apache.org>
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > ignite-schedule does not look to be properly located
> or
> > > > useful.
> > > > >> > > > > > > My +1 here.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:35 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > >> > vololo...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Ilya,
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > I think it is a good initiative! Do we really need
> to
> > > keep
> > > > >> > > > > > > > run/callLocall methods at all?
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > ср, 18 дек. 2019 г. в 17:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > il...@apache.org
> > > > >> > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hello!
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Since 2.8 is branched, I want to initiate the
> > > discussion
> > > > >> > about
> > > > >> > > > > > removal
> > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > ignite-schedule module.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > My plan as follows:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Remove ignite-schedule module entirely.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Move runLocal and callLocal methods from
> > > > IgniteScheduler to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > IgniteCompute.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Delete IgniteScheduler interface with its
> remaining
> > > > >> > > > scheduleLocal()
> > > > >> > > > > > > > methods.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Rationale: Ignite is not a tool for local
> > scheduling,
> > > > >> > > > > IgniteScheduler
> > > > >> > > > > > > > does
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > not provide any means of remote scheduling, and I
> > > don't
> > > > think
> > > > >> > > > > anybody
> > > > >> > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > using that (especially since ignite-schedule is
> > > > unpublished
> > > > >> > LGPL
> > > > >> > > > > > > module).
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > I would like to hear opinions as well as positive
> > and
> > > > >> > negative
> > > > >> > > > > votes
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > towards this. If I won't see any activity, I will
> go
> > > > forward
> > > > >> > with
> > > > >> > > > > > JIRA
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > issue.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Previous discussion:
> > > > >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5565
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > We tried to move it to Quartz but it changed
> > semantics
> > > > in
> > > > >> > some
> > > > >> > > > > ways.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > --
> > > > >> > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> > Best regards,
> > > > >> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to