ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Thin client: transactions support
Date Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:11:56 GMT
Hello!

I don't see why it should break backward compatibility and protocol. Can
you please elaborate? I imagine that Thin client with TX muxing support
will just send different requests to which server will respond differently.
Why would anything break?

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


пн, 26 авг. 2019 г. в 14:16, Igor Sapego <isapego@apache.org>:

> Ilya,
>
> This will break backward compatibility and probably protocol, and this is
> not something we should discuss in the context of this specific task. More
> like this is a topic for 3.0 wishlist.
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:28 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > Also, let's not add IGNITE_ settings for options that can reasonably be
> > configured from IgniteConfiguration. Let's keep it for very edge cases.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > пн, 26 авг. 2019 г. в 12:27, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > Do we still need to separate client connector configuration from thin
> > > connector configuration from ODBC connector configuration?
> > >
> > > I think this is a bad practice: For example, people often turn on SSL
> or
> > > auth on just a subset of connectors, think they are secure, when in
> fact
> > > they still have unsecured connector around (e.g. ODBC) and their data
> is
> > > not protected at all.
> > >
> > > It may solve some specific issue that you are facing, but for newcomers
> > to
> > > project it is a drawback. I think we should seek to not add connector
> > > configurations anymore.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >
> > >
> > > пт, 23 авг. 2019 г. в 20:49, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.alex@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >> Pavel,
> > >>
> > >> ClientConnectorConfiguration is related to JDBC, ODBC and thin
> clients,
> > >> the
> > >> new property only related to thin clients. If we put the new property
> > >> directly into ClientConnectorConfiguration, someone might think that
> it
> > >> also affects JDBC and ODBC.
> > >>
> > >> пт, 23 авг. 2019 г. в 19:59, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org>:
> > >>
> > >> > Igor, Alex,
> > >> >
> > >> > Not sure I agree with this: ThinClientConfiguration inside
> > >> > ClientConnectorConfiguration.
> > >> > Very confusing IMO, because ClientConnectorConfiguration is already
> > >> related
> > >> > to thin clients only.
> > >> >
> > >> > Why not put the new property directly into
> > ClientConnectorConfiguration?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message