Denis, > The API is definitely used with even higher demand for the last months > (overall the demand is comparable to Ignite Kafka and ML). See attachment. I do not see the attachement. Where can I find it?
чт, 19 дек. 2019 г. в 20:01, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > The API is definitely used with even higher demand for the last months > (overall the demand is comparable to Ignite Kafka and ML). See attachment. > > If the module has some problems let's discuss them separately and see how to > approach first. Do we have a list of the issues tracked anywhere? > > > - > Denis > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:52 AM Valentin Kulichenko > <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ivan, >> >> IGFS and Hadoop Accelerator had inherent architectural flaws - the vast >> majority of users who tried to use these features failed to achieve >> expected results. And yes, at the same time the interest was very high, so >> we really needed to take action :) >> >> Scheduler module, on the other hand, works as expected and might be used by >> someone. There is no need to hurry. >> >> It probably makes sense to deprecate the functionality in 2.8 so that users >> are aware of upcoming removal. But the removal itself should happen in the >> major release. >> >> -Val >> >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:09 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Guys, >> > >> > Why some of us are so critical regarding the subject? If I recall >> > correctly we decided to drop IGFS and Hadoop support before 2.8 >> > without much debate. And it was a feature users were interested in. I >> > never saw an interest to IgniteSchedule. My statistics is based on our >> > User mailing list. >> > >> > чт, 19 дек. 2019 г. в 11:00, Alexey Kuznetsov <akuznet...@apache.org>: >> > > >> > > I will vote "+1" for 3.0 >> > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:57 AM Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > My Vote was for 3.0 >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:44 AM Valentin Kulichenko < >> > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Is this suggested for 3.0 or 2.8? >> > > > > >> > > > > I tend to agree with Alexey - API compatibility should be preserved >> > > > within >> > > > > a major version. I would oppose doing such a change in 2.x. >> > > > > >> > > > > If this is planned for 3.0, then it's a definite +1 from me. >> > > > > >> > > > > -Val >> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:34 PM Alexey Kuznetsov < >> > akuznet...@apache.org >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi! >> > > > > > >> > > > > > What if some users already using this module? >> > > > > > What they should do? Rewrite code? >> > > > > > I do not think it is a good idea. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > My "-1" here. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:53 AM Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > ignite-schedule does not look to be properly located or useful. >> > > > > > > My +1 here. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 8:35 AM Ivan Pavlukhin < >> > vololo...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ilya, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I think it is a good initiative! Do we really need to keep >> > > > > > > > run/callLocall methods at all? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ср, 18 дек. 2019 г. в 17:59, Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@apache.org >> > >: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hello! >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Since 2.8 is branched, I want to initiate the discussion >> > about >> > > > > > removal >> > > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > > ignite-schedule module. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > My plan as follows: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Remove ignite-schedule module entirely. >> > > > > > > > > Move runLocal and callLocal methods from IgniteScheduler to >> > > > > > > > IgniteCompute. >> > > > > > > > > Delete IgniteScheduler interface with its remaining >> > > > scheduleLocal() >> > > > > > > > methods. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Rationale: Ignite is not a tool for local scheduling, >> > > > > IgniteScheduler >> > > > > > > > does >> > > > > > > > > not provide any means of remote scheduling, and I don't think >> > > > > anybody >> > > > > > > is >> > > > > > > > > using that (especially since ignite-schedule is unpublished >> > LGPL >> > > > > > > module). >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I would like to hear opinions as well as positive and >> > negative >> > > > > votes >> > > > > > > > > towards this. If I won't see any activity, I will go forward >> > with >> > > > > > JIRA >> > > > > > > > > issue. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Previous discussion: >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5565 >> > > > > > > > > We tried to move it to Quartz but it changed semantics in >> > some >> > > > > ways. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Regards, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Alexey Kuznetsov >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > Ivan Pavlukhin >> > -- Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin
