Nikita, Cos, Agree, IgniteDB would be a much better option if the project would be launched these days with the current set of capabilities. But, as of now, the renaming won't be a benign move, it can do more bad than good. "Apache Ignite" is already a brand and even a trademark, the organic traffic is high and the word-of-mouth is ramping up. So, it doesn't make sense from a marketing standpoint. Also, regardless of the name you still need to define your database - whether it's columnar, in-memory, memory-X, extraterrestrial, or interstellar, or whatever. Anyway, I believe that Ignite can easily pivot without the name change.
- Denis On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:49 AM Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 > > With regards, > Cos > > On 2020-09-21 20:35, Nikita Ivanov wrote: > > My vote is to just call ignite "IgniteDB". That's it. No other additional > > explanation is required as no amount of additional verbiage will help. > > Every DB is different: from MongoDB, to RedisDB, to CockroachDB, to > Oracle > > - they all look & act completely different, and they don't go around > trying > > to explain in one line what they do and how they are different. > > > > "IgniteDB" is clear, concise and gives us the broadest initial acceptance > > from the new user perspective. > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Nikita Ivanov > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 1:10 PM Saikat Maitra <saikat.mai...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> My thoughts are similar to as Denis and Val mentioned like Apache > Ignite - > >> "A Memory Centric Database". > >> > >> It aligns to current features of Apache Ignite as mentioned in the below > >> post. > >> > >> > >> > https://thenewstack.io/memory-centric-architectures-whats-next-for-in-memory-computing > >> > >> Regards, > >> Saikat > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:02 AM Carbone, Adam < > adam.carb...@bottomline.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> So when I came across Ignite It was described as an In Memory Data Grid > >>> > >>> So one way to look at this is who do you fashion as Ignite competing > >>> against? > >>> > >>> Are competing against Redis, Aerospike - In Memory Databases > >>> > >>> Or are you more competing with > >>> > >>> Gigaspaces - True In memory Compute platform > >>> > >>> And then you have like of > >>> > >>> Hazelcast that started as a Distributed Hash and have gained some > >>> features... > >>> > >>> On thing that I think is a differentiator that isn't being highlighted > >>> but Is unique feature to Ignited, and the primary reason we ended up > here; > >>> The integration with spark and it's distributed/shared > Datasets/Dataframes. > >>> > >>> I don't know for me the In Memory Data Grid I think fits what Ignite > >>> is... > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> > >>> ~Adam > >>> > >>> Adam Carbone | Director of Innovation – Intelligent Platform Team | > >>> Bottomline Technologies > >>> Office: 603-501-6446 | Mobile: 603-570-8418 > >>> www.bottomline.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 9/17/20, 11:45 AM, "Glenn Wiebe" <glenn.wi...@gridgain.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> I agree with Stephen about "database" devaluing what Ignite can do > >>> (though > >>> it probably hits the majority of existing use cases). I tend to go > >>> with > >>> "massively distributed storage and compute platform" > >>> > >>> I know, I didn't take sides, I just have both. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Glenn > >>> > >>> On Thu., Sep. 17, 2020, 7:04 a.m. Stephen Darlington, < > >>> stephen.darling...@gridgain.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > I think this is a great question. Explaining what Ignite does is > >>> always a > >>> > challenge, so having a useful “tag line” would be very valuable. > >>> > > >>> > I’m not sure what the answer is but I think calling it a > “database” > >>> > devalues all the compute facilities. "Computing platform” may be > >>> too vague > >>> > but it at least says that we do more than “just” store data. > >>> > > >>> > On 17 Sep 2020, at 06:29, Valentin Kulichenko < > >>> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > My vote is for the "distributed memory-first database". It > clearly > >>> states > >>> > that Ignite is a database (which is true at this point), while > still > >>> > emphasizing the in-memory computing power endorsed by the > platform. > >>> > > >>> > The "in-memory computing platform" is an ambiguous term and > doesn't > >>> really > >>> > reflect what Ignite is, especially in its current state. > >>> > > >>> > -Val > >>> > > >>> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:53 PM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> Igniters, > >>> >> > >>> >> Throughout the history of our project, we could see how the > >>> addition of > >>> >> certain features required us to reassess the project's name and > >>> category. > >>> >> > >>> >> Before Ignite joined the ASF, it supported only compute APIs > >>> resembling > >>> >> the > >>> >> MapReduce engine of Hadoop. Those days, it was fair to define > >>> Ignite as "a > >>> >> distributed in-memory computing engine". Next, at the time of > the > >>> project > >>> >> donation, it already included key-value/SQL/transactional APIs, > >>> was used > >>> >> as > >>> >> a distributed cache, and significantly outgrew the "in-memory > >>> computing > >>> >> engine" use case. That's how the project transitioned to the > >>> product > >>> >> category of in-memory caches and we started to name it as an > >>> "in-memory > >>> >> data grid" or "in-memory computing platform" to differentiate > from > >>> >> classical caching products such as Memcached and Redis. > >>> >> > >>> >> Nowadays, the project outgrew its caching use case, and the > >>> classification > >>> >> of Ignite as an "in-memory data grid" or "in-memory computing > >>> platform" > >>> >> doesn't sound accurate. We rebuilt our storage engine by > replacing > >>> a > >>> >> typical key-value engine with a B-tree engine that spans across > >>> memory and > >>> >> disk tiers. And it's not surprising to see more deployments of > >>> Ignite as a > >>> >> database on its own. So, it feels like we need to reconsider > Ignite > >>> >> positioning again so that a) application developers can > discover > >>> it easily > >>> >> via search engines and b) the project can stand out from > in-memory > >>> >> projects > >>> >> with intersecting capabilities. > >>> >> > >>> >> To the point, I'm suggesting to reposition Ignite in one of the > >>> following > >>> >> ways: > >>> >> > >>> >> 1. Ignite is a "distributed X database". We are indeed a > >>> distributed > >>> >> partitioned database where X can be "multi-tiered" or > >>> "memory-first" to > >>> >> emphasize that we are more than an in-memory database. > >>> >> 2. Keep defining Ignite as "an in-memory computing platform" > >>> but name > >>> >> our storage engine uniquely as "IgniteDB" to highlight that > the > >>> >> platform is > >>> >> powered by a "distributed multi-tiered/memory-first > database". > >>> >> > >>> >> What is your thinking? > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> (Also, regardless of a selected name, Ignite still will be > used as > >>> a cache > >>> >> and grid, and we're not going to stop appealing to those use > >>> cases. But > >>> >> those are just use cases while Ignite has to figure out its new > >>> identity > >>> >> ... again). > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> - > >>> >> Denis > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >
