Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
Hello! I did not find the exact information but I can confirm that ignite-schedule 1.0.0 may see some downloads, but that's all. Since 1.0.0 we don't publish this artifact so its usage also remains a mystery. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пн, 23 дек. 2019 г. в 22:37, Denis Magda : > https://repository.apache.org > > At least Ignite PMC has access to data. > > - > Denis > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:35 AM Ilya Kasnacheev < > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > Can you guide me where these downloads are from? We don't seem to publish > > ignite-schedule to Maven Central since early 1.x. > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > сб, 21 дек. 2019 г. в 03:20, Denis Magda : > > > > > Ilya, good points, then support the idea of the API removal in 3.0. > > > > > > Ivan, downloaded the screenshot to Google Drive: > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N21N7yqCbeZtCNs1sHvJLiJfHF_Hp0wd/view?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > - > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:09 AM Ilya Kasnacheev < > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > This module has two obvious downsides: > > > > > > > > - It's LGPL. > > > > - It can only schedule locally. > > > > > > > > We could fix 1) by using other implementation, but given 2) this no > > > longer > > > > sounds feasible. If someone wants to use local scheduler, why not > just > > > use > > > > it directly? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 20 дек. 2019 г. в 10:26, Ivan Pavlukhin : > > > > > > > > > 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 : > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > >> >
Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
https://repository.apache.org At least Ignite PMC has access to data. - Denis On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:35 AM Ilya Kasnacheev wrote: > Hello! > > Can you guide me where these downloads are from? We don't seem to publish > ignite-schedule to Maven Central since early 1.x. > > Regards, > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > сб, 21 дек. 2019 г. в 03:20, Denis Magda : > > > Ilya, good points, then support the idea of the API removal in 3.0. > > > > Ivan, downloaded the screenshot to Google Drive: > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N21N7yqCbeZtCNs1sHvJLiJfHF_Hp0wd/view?usp=sharing > > > > > > - > > Denis > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:09 AM Ilya Kasnacheev < > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > This module has two obvious downsides: > > > > > > - It's LGPL. > > > - It can only schedule locally. > > > > > > We could fix 1) by using other implementation, but given 2) this no > > longer > > > sounds feasible. If someone wants to use local scheduler, why not just > > use > > > it directly? > > > > > > Regards, > > > -- > > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > > > > > > > пт, 20 дек. 2019 г. в 10:26, Ivan Pavlukhin : > > > > > > > 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 : > > > > > > > > > > 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
Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
Ilya, good points, then support the idea of the API removal in 3.0. Ivan, downloaded the screenshot to Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N21N7yqCbeZtCNs1sHvJLiJfHF_Hp0wd/view?usp=sharing - Denis On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:09 AM Ilya Kasnacheev wrote: > Hello! > > This module has two obvious downsides: > > - It's LGPL. > - It can only schedule locally. > > We could fix 1) by using other implementation, but given 2) this no longer > sounds feasible. If someone wants to use local scheduler, why not just use > it directly? > > Regards, > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > > пт, 20 дек. 2019 г. в 10:26, Ivan Pavlukhin : > > > 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 : > > > > > > 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 > > 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 > > 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. > > >> > > > > > > > >
Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
Hello! This module has two obvious downsides: - It's LGPL. - It can only schedule locally. We could fix 1) by using other implementation, but given 2) this no longer sounds feasible. If someone wants to use local scheduler, why not just use it directly? Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пт, 20 дек. 2019 г. в 10:26, Ivan Pavlukhin : > 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 : > > > > 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 > 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 >: > >> > > > >> > > I will vote "+1" for 3.0 > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:57 AM Anton Vinogradov > 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
Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
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 : > > 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 > 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 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 : >> > > >> > > I will vote "+1" for 3.0 >> > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:57 AM Anton Vinogradov >> > > 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 >> > > > 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 > > >: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 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
Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
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 > 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 : > > > > > > I will vote "+1" for 3.0 > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:57 AM Anton Vinogradov > 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 > > > > 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 > > >
Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
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 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 : > > > > I will vote "+1" for 3.0 > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:57 AM Anton Vinogradov 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 > > > 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 >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 >
Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
I see no need for haste. These methods do not break anything and could be in use by community. +1 to remove in 3.0 чт, 19 дек. 2019 г. в 11:09, Ivan Pavlukhin : > 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 : > > > > I will vote "+1" for 3.0 > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:57 AM Anton Vinogradov 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 > > > 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 >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, Alexei Scherbakov
Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
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 : > > I will vote "+1" for 3.0 > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:57 AM Anton Vinogradov 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 > > > > > 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 > > 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 > > > > > 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 : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
I will vote "+1" for 3.0 On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:57 AM Anton Vinogradov 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 > > > 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 > 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 > > > > 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 : > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
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 > 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 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 > > > 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 : > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > >
Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
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 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 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 > > 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 : > > > > > > > > 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 >
Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
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 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 > 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 : > > > > > > 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
Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
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 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 : > > > > 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 >
Re: Let's remove ignite-schedule module and IgniteScheduler interface
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 : > > 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
