I think providing direct JDBC as an alternative to EclipseLink is potentially a good idea. I am concerned about the prospect of totally removing the TreeMap implementation and dropping down to only EclipseLink. Michael remarked the other day that you often need >2 implementations before an abstraction really has its mettle tested. To that end, I'm wary of removing 1/2 implementations at present time while we are trying to improve the persistence interface(s).
Also, on a more practical level, the in-memory metastore is quite useful for testing and development. On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 9:28 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > I thought we discussed experimenting directly using JDBC (without > EclipseLink) and we will decide what's the best option. > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 4:53 PM Alex Dutra > <alex.du...@dremio.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I think Dmitri's suggestion makes sense as a short-term solution. > Removing > > EclipseLink is a much bigger task, and I don't think we'll have time to > do > > that before the 1.0.0 release. Imho the 1.0.0 release will ship with > > Quarkus + EclipseLink. > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 4:25 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Dmitri > > > > > > That's a fair question. I agree about H2, but I'm not sure about > > > EclipseLink, especially now that we are powered by Quarkus. > > > > > > Why not directly using JDBC (without EclipseLink) ? > > > Quarkus Panache is not really an option for now due to license issue > > > (Hibernate ORM). > > > > > > Regards > > > JB > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 4:12 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <di...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > Given that it is possible to run EclipseLink with H2 in memory, is > there > > > > value in keeping a separate in-memory MetaStore implementation? > > > > > > > > My main concern is that the plain in-memory MetaStore is > significantly > > > > different from the EclipseLink metastore and might deviate in > behaviour. > > > > With that in mind and given that the plain in-memory impl. is not > > > suitable > > > > for production use cases, is it worth keeping it? WDYT? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dmitri. > > > >
