Let's try to simplify the project's messaging - not introduce new sub-component naming or synthetic shelving to it :-) -- Nikita Ivanov
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:01 PM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > If "Apache Ignite" remains then another option is to keep defining Ignite > as an in-memory computing platform that is shaped by two essential > components: > > - IgniteDB - unique storage engine > - compute layer which is basically our APIs. > > Also, check Mongo that titled its latest storage engine as WiredTiger to > highlight the uniqueness, that there is something special about it, urging > you to go ahead and look into (the same move should work for the Ignite > platform that is powered the IgniteDB database/storage engine): > https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/core/storage-engines/ > > Just another idea into this melting pot. > > > - > Denis > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:51 AM Nikita Ivanov <nivano...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > "Apache Ignite" will remain the same... We are just going to refer to it > as > > "IgniteDB" everywhere where it doesn't technically conflict with "Apache > > Ignite". We are also not changing the package structure (i.e. the > packaging > > will remain 'org.apache.ignite.xxx'). > > > > Or... we can go and rename the project to "Apache IgniteDB" which is a > > longer process but the community has plenty of time to do it in "ignite > > 3.0" timeframe. I'd love to hear other's opinions on that. > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Nikita Ivanov > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:44 AM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > >>> >> > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
