Hello! I added these because they are infrastructural to Ignite, as opposed to integrations. They are also both very slim.
Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пт, 6 мар. 2020 г. в 13:25, Stephen Darlington < stephen.darling...@gridgain.com>: > Why ignite-jta and ignite-urideploy? Anecdotally at least, I know very few > people who use either. > > > On 6 Mar 2020, at 11:09, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hello! > > > > Re-posting from *[DISCUSSION] Release Apache Ignite 2.8.0 RC1* > > > > I have prepared assemblies for Apache Ignite slim packaging: > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-slim > > > > It is based on ignite-2.8 > > > > You can build it with mvn initialize -Prelease,lgpl > -Dignite.edition=apache- > > ignite-slim after a normal release build. > > > > Please consider the contents of resulting > > target/bin/apache-ignite-slim-2.8.0-bin.zip > > It will be a 65M download as opposed to main 455M apache-ignite-2.8.0 > > distribution. > > > > My suggestion is that we can publish it as a post-release step since it > > does not affect the release in any way. If we do, we should probably > > indicate size for every kind of artifact in our download section, so our > > users can choose based on that information. > > > > The following modules are included: > > > > libs: > > core/shmem/jcache > > ignite-indexing > > ignite-spring > > > > libs/optional: > > ignite-compress ignite-kubernetes ignite-log4j2 ignite-rest-http > > ignite-spring-data_2.2 > > ignite-jta ignite-log4j ignite-opencensus ignite-slf4j > > ignite-urideploy > > > > I have kept examples, but removed benchmarks. sqlline still present, of > > course. > > > > ignite-zookeeper has a lot of dependencies (8M) which we do not update > > often enough (such as guava, curator, jackson), and which may form an > > attack surface. > > > > Not a pressing problem for 'integrated' ignite-zookeeper users, since > they > > can re-import these dependencies with more recent versions using maven or > > gradle. > > But for our users who rely on binary package for all JARs, outdated > > dependencies may pose a problem. > > > > Therefore my opinion is to exclude this dependency and not put our faith > on > > zookeeper dependency version. > > > > The same can be put for ignite-compress, and indeed, I'm not sure if we > > should keep it. > > > > We can have an ad-hoc vote here. > > > > I would like to hear arguments for both inclusion and exclusion of > > ignite-zookeeper and ignite-compress into slim package (in any > combination). > > > > I would also like to know if you want a formal vote on the issue. > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > пн, 27 янв. 2020 г. в 21:13, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > >> Alex, could you please list all the modules that will be excluded? It > will > >> help to confirm we haven't dumped anything essential. > >> > >> - > >> Denis > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:33 AM Alexey Goncharuk < > >> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Got it, sounds good! > >>> Should we consider the list of modules included in the slim package > >>> finalized? > >>> > >>> чт, 16 янв. 2020 г. в 13:13, Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org>: > >>> > >>>> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
