I'm going to go ahead and do this tomorrow if there are no objections. On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1 for marking it experimental and going ahead with changing it. > > -Dan > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> +1 to marking it experimental now >> >> Once we do that I think it will be fine for the community to make breaking >> changes to it if we need to. >> >> -- >> Mike Stolz >> Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager >> Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 >> >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Galen M O'Sullivan <gosulli...@pivotal.io >> > >> wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I think that we should mark the Redis adapter as experimental. This >> > functionality comes from the initial code grant from GemFire. It is >> > mentioned in the "Experimental" section of the GemFire docs [1], and as >> far >> > as I can tell, the only reason it hasn't been marked as experimental in >> > Geode is because no one put the annotation on when the @Experimental tag >> > was introduced. >> > >> > The Redis adapter's performance on collection operations is pretty bad >> > (think 1% of Redis on a single-server configuration), and there are some >> > bugs outstanding (for example, [2]), so I don't think it's really ready >> for >> > general use. >> > >> > What do you all think? Is anyone out there using the Redis adapter? >> Should >> > it be considered breaking to change it just because it's been released >> when >> > it wasn't marked experimental? Should we just go ahead and change it >> > already? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Galen >> > >> > [1]: http://gemfire.docs.pivotal.io/geode/tools_modules/redis_ada >> pter.html >> > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2473 >> > >> > >
