Alexey, if I understand correctly, Ilya does not suggest to pre-built
binaries, just to ship it with configure script pre-generated, which
is a common practice for autotools packages. Building will be still
required for the user, but there will be less requirements and
possible errors during build.
I like the idea. Let's do this.
Best Regards,
Igor
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:57 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me it doesn't really matter if it will be 'slim' or 'lite' :) I would
> not name it 'core' because indeed it would be confusing with the core
> module name.
>
> Agree that platforms support is useful, so I would keep them as Ilya
> suggested. As for the C++ packages pre-build - let's hear out Igor's
> opinion on this. Pre-built binaries certainly add usability, but I am not
> sure how those binaries should be tested afterwards.
>
> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:33, Alexey Kuznetsov <akuznet...@apache.org>:
>
> > I'm +1 for "SLIM" it is a common name in Docker world.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 9:48 PM Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for slim binary
> > > Plus docker-slim
> > > Plus RPM / DEB packages modularisation like PHP distribution — with
> core
> > > and lots of integrations / modules.
> > >
> > > > On 15 Jan 2020, at 17:40, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > I think we should name it "core" since we already have ignite-core
> and
> > it
> > > > will be confusing. Maybe we should go full 00s and call it "lite"?
> > > >
> > > > I also think we should keep both .Net and C++. .Net is runnable out
> of
> > > box
> > > > which is awesome, and C++ needs building but it is rather small in
> > source
> > > > form.
> > > >
> > > > I also suggest a different change to build process. Let's ship C++
> with
> > > > automake, etc, already run, for all binary packaging options? WDYT? I
> > can
> > > > assist in build process tuning.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 17:18, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > >> Alex,
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm on your end and support the proposal. Could you also clarify if
> > you
> > > >> suggest we keeping or removing C++ and .NET thick clients?
> > > >>
> > > >> Speaking of the naming, how about titling such packages as 'core'
> > > instead
> > > >> of 'slim', i.e., 'apache-ignite-core-{version}'?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -
> > > >> Denis
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:17 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> > > >>>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hello!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Pavel, I believe these JARs are fully covered by the list of
> modules
> > > >>> specified above.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards,
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 14:50, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org
> >:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> I like the idea, current distribution is certainly too big.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Here is a list of jar files we include in NuGet package:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> cache-api-1.0.0.jar
> > > >>>> commons-codec-1.11.jar
> > > >>>> commons-logging-1.1.1.jar
> > > >>>> h2-1.4.197.jar
> > > >>>> ignite-core-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
> > > >>>> ignite-indexing-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
> > > >>>> ignite-shmem-1.0.0.jar
> > > >>>> ignite-spring-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
> > > >>>> lucene-analyzers-common-7.4.0.jar
> > > >>>> lucene-core-7.4.0.jar
> > > >>>> lucene-queryparser-7.4.0.jar
> > > >>>> spring-aop-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > > >>>> spring-beans-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > > >>>> spring-context-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > > >>>> spring-core-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > > >>>> spring-expression-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > > >>>> spring-jdbc-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > > >>>> spring-tx-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Those are required for SQL and Spring configs to work properly,
> > > >>>> maybe we want to include them into the slim distro as well.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 2:25 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > >>> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Hello!
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> This is a reasonable idea.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I think we should also drop benchmarks/ directory from that
> build,
> > > >> it's
> > > >>>> 60M
> > > >>>>> of (potentially vulnerable) JARs that are not needed by an
> average
> > > >>>>> developer's use cases.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 13:10, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Igniters,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I would like to discuss with the community a possibility to
> create
> > > >>>>>> additional 'slim' binary releases and docker images for Apache
> > > >>> Ignite.
> > > >>>>> The
> > > >>>>>> reason is two-fold:
> > > >>>>>> * The full set of 3rd party libraries distributed with Apache
> > > >> Ignite
> > > >>>>> looks
> > > >>>>>> too large for me. I know there is an ongoing activity towards
> more
> > > >>>> clear
> > > >>>>>> Ignite modularization [1][2][3], but this seems to be quite a
> long
> > > >>>>> process.
> > > >>>>>> On the other hand, creating a slim release may give an immediate
> > > >>>> benefit
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>> the users who are interested in a smaller image. For example,
> > > >>> removing
> > > >>>>> the
> > > >>>>>> benchmarks alone from the binary release saves 80M.
> > > >>>>>> * As Ilya Kasnacheev demonstrated [4], the more 3rd party
> > > >> libraries
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>>>> have, the more potential vulnerabilities will show up in audit
> > > >> tools.
> > > >>>>> This
> > > >>>>>> may be a formal barrier for Apache Ignite adoption and moving to
> > > >>>>> production
> > > >>>>>> for many users. Having a slim image with the minimum number of
> > > >>>>> dependencies
> > > >>>>>> (yet complete enough to fit the majority of use-cases)
> > > >> significantly
> > > >>>>>> reduces this risk.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I wonder what community thinks regarding this idea? Given the
> > > >> recent
> > > >>>>> study
> > > >>>>>> of Apache Ignite use-cases, I suggest the following list of
> > modules
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>> be
> > > >>>>>> included to the slim release/image (a subject to discuss, of
> > > >> course):
> > > >>>>>> * ignite-core
> > > >>>>>> * ignite-indexing
> > > >>>>>> * ignite-rest-http
> > > >>>>>> * ignite-spring
> > > >>>>>> * ignite-log4j
> > > >>>>>> * ignite-log4j2
> > > >>>>>> * ignite-slf4j
> > > >>>>>> * ignite-urideploy
> > > >>>>>> * ignite-kubernetes
> > > >>>>>> * ignite-opencensus
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Ignite-3-0-and-to-be-removed-list-td42330.html
> > > >>>>>> [2]
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IGNITE-12358-Migrate-ZeroMQ-module-to-ignite-extensions-td45067.html
> > > >>>>>> [3]
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IGNITE-12361-Migrate-Flume-module-to-ignite-extensions-td45010.html
> > > >>>>>> [4]
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-8-RELEASE-Time-Scope-Manager-td43616i100.html#a44994
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> --AG
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Alexey Kuznetsov
> >
>
