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 "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 > > >
