Val, 1. Our clients should stop require persistent store implementation if they do not need it. Can you please file a ticket? I know you fixed some places already. As an idea I would keep everything in binary format until we really need it. Will that work? 2. We can try adding the very first step to fetch the configuration and then proceed with normal start. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4675 3. Agree, but user needs to define the closures then. I would think on how to put this to a product. 4. This needs to be implemented :) I mean we can communicate to a client through server it is connected to.
Thanks! -- Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D *GridGain Systems* www.gridgain.com 2017-02-09 5:19 GMT+07:00 Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com >: > Yakov, > > I agree that investing in the legacy client doesn't make sense - it's slow > and outdated. Regarding your points: > > 1. This is just another build step, but the JAR is going to pretty fat I > think (it will have to include Spring). Not ideal, but definitely better > than what we have now. However, our clients also often require some user > classes, like CacheStore implementations. This is also a problem. > > 2. That's a great idea! Actually, I'm not sure why we require to have full > verbose config on client that is consistent with server. Why not fetch the > configuration from cluster during join? Not sure how hard this change is, > but it can be a very big usability improvement. And surely, JDBC driver > should be able to config with host:port without config file. > > 3. This can be already achieved with Compute Grid, no? I don't think we > need to add anything here. > > Another issue with clients is that they currently can't work behind NAT > without additional config which is not very trivial (AddressResolver). Is > it possible to avoid server->client connections in communication SPI? > > -Val > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> wrote: > > > "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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
