Re: [DISCUSS] removal of experimental Protobuf client/server interface

2021-03-24 Thread Jens Deppe
I was very excited when the protobuf support became available as it allowed for the fairly quick development of a Go client. (https://github.com/gemfire/geode-go-client). As Udo already mentioned, removing this functionality reduces our potential exposure to new use cases and language

Re: [DISCUSS] removal of experimental Protobuf client/server interface

2021-03-24 Thread Dan Smith
I also worked on the protobuf interface for a little while, although not for as long as some of the other folks commenting. I'm ok with removing it. I do see some value in leaving stalled/incomplete projects around as bait for future developers to pick up - that seems to have worked for redis

Re: CODEWATCHERS file effects

2021-03-24 Thread Alberto Gomez
Thank you, Owen. My bad. I had forgotten I had added myself also to the "Client/server messaging and cache operations" sections of the code which explains why I was added as reviewer to the PRs I did not expect. Best regards, Alberto From: Owen Nichols Sent:

Re: CODEWATCHERS file effects

2021-03-24 Thread Owen Nichols
Thanks Alberto for the detailed list. I think I was able to find explanations for all, see below. > https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6177 # geode-core/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/cache/client/internal/QueueManagerImpl.java #matches your rule: #

Re: CODEWATCHERS file effects

2021-03-24 Thread Alberto Gomez
Hi Owen, Here are some PRs I feel I was added to in error: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6177 https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6156 https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6153 https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6151 https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6075