Re: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0

2019-01-25 Thread Sergey Kozlov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I value strict compatibility rules very highly, and would be > > > happy > > > > if > > > > > > we >

Re: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0

2019-01-24 Thread Sergey
> in a minor release. > > > > > > > Unfortunately, Ignite is far from that place for now. We don’t > > have > > > > any > > > > > > > distinction between API and internal classes, don’t have > > > > > > > p

Re: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0

2019-01-24 Thread Denis Magda
don’t have > > > > > > plugin-only APIs, etc. All classes are public, everything is > > > accessible > > > > > to > > > > > > user code. We even refer to internal classes in public Javadoc > > > > > > (e.g. I recall

Re: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0

2019-01-24 Thread Sergey Kozlov
d there). > > > > > Considering this, moving CommandHandler from ignite-core to > > > > > ignite-control-utility > > > > > doesn't look that bad. It doesn’t differ to much from any other > > change > > > > > that

Re: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0

2019-01-24 Thread Sergey Antonov
ing this, moving CommandHandler from ignite-core to > > > > ignite-control-utility > > > > doesn't look that bad. It doesn’t differ to much from any other > change > > > > that removes or renames a class. > > > > There could be required changes with a

Re: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0

2019-01-24 Thread Alexey Kuznetsov
doesn’t differ to much from any other change > > > that removes or renames a class. > > > There could be required changes with a higher compatibility impact but > I > > > don’t see them after a superficial glance. > > > > > > Stan > > > > >

Re: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0

2019-01-23 Thread Denis Magda
required changes with a higher compatibility impact but I > > don’t see them after a superficial glance. > > > > Stan > > > > From: Sergey Antonov > > Sent: 23 января 2019 г. 19:15 > > To: dev@ignite.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh glo

Re: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0

2019-01-23 Thread Sergey Kozlov
; From: Sergey Antonov > Sent: 23 января 2019 г. 19:15 > To: dev@ignite.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0 > > Stan, thank you for response! > > I my view we shouldn't make incompatible changes and switch extendable > classes (i.e.

RE: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0

2019-01-23 Thread Stanislav Lukyanov
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0 Stan, thank you for response! I my view we shouldn't make incompatible changes and switch extendable classes (i.e. VisorDataTransferObject -> IgniteDataTransferObject) between minor releases. Therefore we couldn't rework util

Re: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0

2019-01-23 Thread Sergey Antonov
es are > internal and unlikely to be used in the wild. > On paper it’s an incompatible change, of course, but I think in this case > it’s fine. > > My 2 cents, > Stan > > From: Sergey Antonov > Sent: 23 января 2019 г. 17:10 > To: dev@ignite.apache.org > Subject: [DISC

RE: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0

2019-01-23 Thread Stanislav Lukyanov
in the wild. On paper it’s an incompatible change, of course, but I think in this case it’s fine. My 2 cents, Stan From: Sergey Antonov Sent: 23 января 2019 г. 17:10 To: dev@ignite.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0 Hello, Igniters! I think, we should

[DISCUSSION] Control.sh global rework in apache ignite 3.0

2019-01-23 Thread Sergey Antonov
Hello, Igniters! I think, we should rework control.sh utility in Apache Ignite 3.0 release. I made umbrella ticket [1] for it. For a start we should move utitlity from ignite-core to separate module [2]. It's enable using 3rd-party libraries, for example commons-cli [3]. Also we should add