ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Thin client: transactions support
Date Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:06:27 GMT
Ilya,

Sorry, I've just got your first message wrong. I though, you were
proposing to remove ClientConnectorConfiguration altogether, my bad.

Now, about separating ClientConnectorConfiguration and - I do not
propose to make it a copy with the same options. What I was proposing
is to keep common settings in ClientConnectorConfiguration and place
thin client specific things in a separate class which is going to be nested
as a property of ClientConnectorConfiguration.

Best Regards,
Igor


On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 12:12 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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