Hi Chris, It's not a lack of interest or response. Your initial email was filtered into my Gmail promotion tab, and I didn't see it until you replied again.
Best regards, Yuan Tian On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 6:10 AM Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > So, I treat this lack of response as a „no thanks, we’re not interested“. > > Then I’ll stop keeping „bringing things back“ to upstream as an option, > which will simplify things greatly in the future. > > Chris > > > > > Von: Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> > Datum: Freitag, 27. März 2026 um 09:18 > An: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Betreff: [DISCUSS] Singleton-Free IoTDB? Java 17? Jakarta? > > Hi all, > > As you know, I have brought up several topics repeatedly over the last few > years. > Things that I personally require to continue using IoTDB. > > > * > Living the base-java-version to Java 17 > * > Switching from JavaX to Jakarta namespace > * > Switching from Singletons to Dependency Injection (Spring) > * > Developing on „develop“ and not „master“ (We voted for that years ago but > never did the switch) > > As recently all of them have been denied or ignored, I have created a > personal fork where I applied these changes. > > So now I’m asking … is there interest in this from side of the Project? If > yes, I’m happy to whip up a PR (Even if it’s most probably a HUGE one). If > not, I’ll probably keep on working on my fork and keeping it closed but > stop going the extra mile for making it able to go back into IoTDB and > fully go nuts about it, forming it fully into what I would like it to be > like. > > > * > Replacing the MQTT support with one based on an MQTT client and not an > MQTT Broker. > * > Stripping DataNode into it’s bare essentials > * > Moving all current DataNode extensions into separate plugins. > * > Allowing inner-VM communication between config- and data-node. > > Chris >
