Hi Nikolay, Huge +1 for automated compatibility tests. Luckily, we already did that for persistence, so probably we can re-use some infrastructure from there.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 From me. > > As I wrote in previous mail-threads, > I think we need to create test framework to be able to test compatibility > for all clients we have. > > AFAIK, currently, there is no possibility to automatically check > compatibility. > > В Ср, 06/06/2018 в 11:39 +0300, Vladimir Ozerov пишет: > > Igniters, > > > > I'd like to discuss once again our compatibility policy for thin clients > > (.JDBC, ODBC, .NET, Java, etc.). We have no clear rules for now, so let's > > try to come to agreement. > > > > Normally database vendors work as follows: > > 1) There is a set of currently supported database versions > > 2) There is a set of currently supported JDBC/ODBC drivers > > 3) Every supported driver can work with every supported database (with > > little exclusions to this rule). > > > > That is, they are both backward and forward compatible. I can take latest > > Oracle's JDBC and some ancient Oracle version, and it will work, unless > > this version reached EOL and is no longer supported. And vice versa - new > > database, old driver, all is fine. > > > > This is ideal scheme which I'd like to see in Ignite, but: > > 1) Our protocol is still relatively young and evolve rapidly > > 2) AI does not have any maintenance releases, so we cannot define which > > version is supported and which is not. > > 3) > > > > I'd like to propose the following compatibility policy: > > 1) Maintain forward and backward compatibility between two nearest minor > > releases only. E.g. 2.5 can work with 2.4, 2.6 with 2.5, etc. > > 2) Think of more strict compatibility rules in AI 3.0 because at this > point > > our protocol will be stable enough. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Vladimir. >
