Re: IGNITE-13394 Migrate Kafka module to ignite-extensions

Hi Ilya, I have updated the PR as per review comments. Can you please review and share feedback. https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8222 Regards, Saikat On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 7:31 PM Saikat Maitra wrote: > Hi, > > I have raised the PR for the migration of kafka module from ignite to >

Re: Applicability of term 'cache' to Apache Ignite

Igniters, I would like to resurrect this discussion, as we have a chance to make the change in Ignite 3.0. The 'cache' term is clearly outdated and does not describe the functionality of Ignite. It looks like the term 'table' got the most support so far, and I think it quite accurately describes

Re: IEP-57: API to implement different storage engines, modularization

Hi Maksim, I think your proposal is very good and useful not only for introducing new types of storage engine but also it's a good trigger to rework the existing storage engine to decouple its components of each other. I have a key question that we should answer. Where we should place our

Re: [DISCUSSION] Renaming Ignite's product category

So when I came across Ignite It was described as an In Memory Data Grid So one way to look at this is who do you fashion as Ignite competing against? Are competing against Redis, Aerospike - In Memory Databases Or are you more competing with Gigaspaces - True In memory Compute platform And

Re: New Ignite Docs: Status and Incomplete Items

Denis, > @Pavel Tupitsyn ... Are you going to document the features added in 2.9 Yes, I have this on my plate, but the release was postponed so I postponed the task as well. > is there is anything else you planned to move from readme.io?

Re: Escaping dots in cache metric names

Alex, It seems that the described problem is not a problem at all. The mentioned reason (is not obvious what is a cache name and what is next hierarchical element) will exist forever. If we will replace dots by underscores (or escaped dots, or something else) still will exist the possibility of

Re: IEP-57: API to implement different storage engines, modularization

Hello! My opinion is that we should have a second storage option first, add an abstraction layer later. It's not possible to make a good abstraction layer out of 1 implementation anymore than it's possible to definitely draw a straight line through one point. WRT columnar storage itself, it is

IEP-57: API to implement different storage engines, modularization

Igniters, I want to be able to add another storage for Ignite like column-oriented storage. This requires some changes and defining the abstraction layer. I don't have a definite plan yet for how this could be done? Who wants to take part in this activity? I need the approval of committers for

Re: New Ignite Docs: Status and Incomplete Items

Hi! As we introduce CMake build system for Ignite C++ for Linux and Mac OS X and this improvement is in ignite 2.9, we should document it. (CMake for windows is not ready yet and will be in 2.10) I created ticket for it and assigned it to me. Patch will be available soon. [1] -

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-13459) Document new build process for Ignite C++

Ivan Daschinskiy created IGNITE-13459: - Summary: Document new build process for Ignite C++ Key: IGNITE-13459 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13459 Project: Ignite Issue

Re: New Ignite Docs: Status and Incomplete Items

Hello, Denis. > • @Nikolay Izhikov, is there any chance you can document the new > management commands the next week? Use me as a reviewer. Yes. > 18 сент. 2020 г., в 02:24, Denis Magda написал(а): > > Folks, > > While Artem is unavailable, Mauricio and I keep pushing the new docs