"undeprecating" - lol :D Consider introducing @Un annotation which negates all annotations on the same level and below.
I would probably agree with Val and Vova, but adding features to thin-client seems questionable to me. Is these possible: 1. avoid dependencies on client machine and require ignite-jdbc.jar only (e.g. gathering dependencies inside the jar). 2. make it possible to provide just address and port to send join request to without providing the entire IgniteConfiguration. Client node sends join request to the cluster with flag that this is jdbc-driver connection and server-side topology omits configuration validation and forces client to set some properties if this is necessary (e.g. CommunicationSpi implementation class and settings) 3. add possibility to offload complex reduce processing to server. Which may be very helpful for main client-server use cases when clients being run on much weaker machines. ? --Yakov 2017-02-07 14:30 GMT+07:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > Big +1 to Val, not only about JDBC, but about our overall approach to > clients. Starting a node with "client=true" is: > + Very reach feature set, which is cool > - Tons of dependencies > - Tons of threads > > It would be very cool if we have a true thin client with small single JAR. > It should have: > - Failover > - Load-balance > - Optional server "stickyness" > > Once all these things are in place we will be able to provide the same API > as in current client, but with predictable behavior and memory footprint. > For instance our current client is not well-suited for running map-reduce > (compute or SQL) because it moves large amount of data and processing to > the client, which is potentially a slow desktop machine. > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:44 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > There are two implementations of JDBC driver - based on legacy thin > client > > (jdbc package) and on client node (jdbc2). The first one was deprecated > > when we introduced the latter, but now I tend to think that this was not > a > > right decision. Thin client driver provides worse performance, but it's > > much easier to use, never requires additional dependencies like Spring > and > > can be used from any remote machine. Probably we can consider > undeprecating > > it. > > > > -Val > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > We have 2 different packages: jdbc and jdbc2. Everything in jdbc is > > > deprecated. Because of that new features like DML support were not > added > > > there. > > > > > > This seems to cause some problems to our users. Can someone clarify, > did > > we > > > deprecated these classes wrongly and we have to continue developing > them > > or > > > what? > > > > > > Sergi > > > > > >
