Re: [DISCUSSION] Renaming Ignite's product category

2020-09-24 Thread Denis Magda
*Denis Magda > *Date: *Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 4:14 PM > *To: *dev , "Carbone, Adam" < > adam.carb...@bottomline.com> > *Cc: *"user@ignite.apache.org" > *Subject: *Re: [DISCUSSION] Renaming Ignite's product category > > > > Adam, > &

Re: [DISCUSSION] Renaming Ignite's product category

2020-09-23 Thread Denis Magda
Adam, You defined GigaSpaces as a true in-memory computing platform. What is the true platform for you? - Denis On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 7:02 AM Carbone, Adam 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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Renaming Ignite's product category

2020-09-21 Thread Nikita Ivanov
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

Re: [DISCUSSION] Renaming Ignite's product category

2020-09-19 Thread Saikat Maitra
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 F

Re: [DISCUSSION] Renaming Ignite's product category

2020-09-17 Thread Glenn Wiebe
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.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Renaming Ignite's product category

2020-09-17 Thread Stephen Darlington
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 lea

Re: [DISCUSSION] Renaming Ignite's product category

2020-09-17 Thread Pavel Tupitsyn
Agree with Val, even experienced developers have a hard time understanding what "in-memory computing platform" really does. "distributed memory-first database" is right on point. On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 8:30 AM Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > My vote is for the "dis

Re: [DISCUSSION] Renaming Ignite's product category

2020-09-16 Thread Valentin Kulichenko
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

[DISCUSSION] Renaming Ignite's product category

2020-09-16 Thread Denis Magda
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 Ign