+1, excellent work on the JDBC implementation! On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 3:39 PM yun zou <yunzou.colost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) > > On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 3:21 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 on deprecating the EclipseLink backend. > > > > Yufei > > > > > > On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 3:00 PM Prashant Singh > > <prashant.si...@snowflake.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I’d like to get your thoughts on deprecating EclipseLink and making > JDBC > > > the default for our persistence layer. > > > > > > Our current EclipseLink setup mandates execution within a transaction, > > > which has introduced several issues — notably, an improper > implementation > > > of CAS (compare-and-swap) semantics. To address these shortcomings, > > Apache > > > Polaris underwent a major refactor to decouple persistence interfaces > > from > > > strict transaction dependencies and to ensure actual CAS enforcement. > > > > > > As part of this effort, we introduced a new JDBC backend with a simpler > > and > > > more performant schema, directly addressing the limitations of the > > existing > > > EclipseLink schema. > > > > > > We’ve observed significant improvements compared to the EclipseLink > > > implementation. Notably, issues such as Polaris failing under minimal > > > concurrency (e.g., with just 5 users) have been resolved: > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/1123#issuecomment-2756133924 > > > > > > Given these improvements, I propose we: > > > > > > - > > > > > > Deprecate EclipseLink > > > - > > > > > > Make relational JDBC the default persistence implementation > > > > > > PR to support this change: > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1515 > > > > > > Would love to hear your feedback on this. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Prashant > > > > > >
