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: Slim binary release and docker image for Apache Ignite
Date Thu, 18 Jun 2020 08:38:13 GMT
Hello!

I have fixed nightly and release builds. They should now build
apache-ignite-slim. Please contact me if that does not happen.

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


ср, 17 июн. 2020 г. в 17:00, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>:

> Hello!
>
> I have just merged slim binary release to master.
>
> I will now try to tweak nightly builds TC suite to build this package
> also. It may be broken for some brief period of time.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> вт, 10 мар. 2020 г. в 18:24, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I understand that procedures are courtesy Apache Ignite, but I assume
>> that you went through them and can now repeat them reproducibly.
>>
>> Thank you!
>> --
>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>
>>
>> вт, 10 мар. 2020 г. в 18:12, Maxim Muzafarov <mmuzaf@apache.org>:
>>
>>> Ilya,
>>>
>>> It is not "mine" generic release procedures they are "ours" :-)
>>> I've created the issue [1] based on current discussion thread.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12765
>>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 13:31, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hello!
>>> >
>>> > It is currently included.
>>> >
>>> > Maxim, can you prepare a slim release package based on your generic
>>> release
>>> > procedures? We could take a look at it and then perhaps add it to
>>> downloads
>>> > page officially.
>>> >
>>> > What do you think?
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > --
>>> > Ilya Kasnacheev
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > пт, 6 мар. 2020 г. в 20:48, Maxim Muzafarov <mmuzaf@apache.org>:
>>> >
>>> > > Ilya,
>>> > >
>>> > > `ignite-compress` is necessary for `wal page snapshot compression`
>>> [1]
>>> > > which in turn shows very good performance results. So, I suppose,
>>> it's
>>> > > better to include it to the "slim" binary.
>>> > >
>>> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11336
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 13:31, Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Hello!
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I added these because they are infrastructural to Ignite, as
>>> opposed to
>>> > > > integrations. They are also both very slim.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Regards,
>>> > > > --
>>> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > пт, 6 мар. 2020 г. в 13:25, Stephen Darlington <
>>> > > > stephen.darlington@gridgain.com>:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Why ignite-jta and ignite-urideploy? Anecdotally at least,
I
>>> know very
>>> > > few
>>> > > > > people who use either.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > On 6 Mar 2020, at 11:09, Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Hello!
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Re-posting from *[DISCUSSION] Release Apache Ignite
2.8.0 RC1*
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > I have prepared assemblies for Apache Ignite slim packaging:
>>> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-slim
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > It is based on ignite-2.8
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > You can build it with mvn initialize -Prelease,lgpl
>>> > > > > -Dignite.edition=apache-
>>> > > > > > ignite-slim after a normal release build.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Please consider the contents of resulting
>>> > > > > > target/bin/apache-ignite-slim-2.8.0-bin.zip
>>> > > > > > It will be a 65M download as opposed to main 455M
>>> apache-ignite-2.8.0
>>> > > > > > distribution.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > My suggestion is that we can publish it as a post-release
step
>>> since
>>> > > it
>>> > > > > > does not affect the release in any way. If we do, we
should
>>> probably
>>> > > > > > indicate size for every kind of artifact in our download
>>> section, so
>>> > > our
>>> > > > > > users can choose based on that information.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > The following modules are included:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > libs:
>>> > > > > > core/shmem/jcache
>>> > > > > > ignite-indexing
>>> > > > > > ignite-spring
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > libs/optional:
>>> > > > > > ignite-compress  ignite-kubernetes  ignite-log4j2
>>> > > ignite-rest-http
>>> > > > > > ignite-spring-data_2.2
>>> > > > > > ignite-jta       ignite-log4j       ignite-opencensus
>>> ignite-slf4j
>>> > > > > > ignite-urideploy
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > I have kept examples, but removed benchmarks. sqlline
still
>>> present,
>>> > > of
>>> > > > > > course.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > ignite-zookeeper has a lot of dependencies (8M) which
we do not
>>> > > update
>>> > > > > > often enough (such as guava, curator, jackson), and
which may
>>> form an
>>> > > > > > attack surface.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Not a pressing problem for 'integrated' ignite-zookeeper
>>> users, since
>>> > > > > they
>>> > > > > > can re-import these dependencies with more recent versions
>>> using
>>> > > maven or
>>> > > > > > gradle.
>>> > > > > > But for our users who rely on binary package for all
JARs,
>>> outdated
>>> > > > > > dependencies may pose a problem.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Therefore my opinion is to exclude this dependency and
not put
>>> our
>>> > > faith
>>> > > > > on
>>> > > > > > zookeeper dependency version.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > The same can be put for ignite-compress, and indeed,
I'm not
>>> sure if
>>> > > we
>>> > > > > > should keep it.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > We can have an ad-hoc vote here.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > I would like to hear arguments for both inclusion and
>>> exclusion of
>>> > > > > > ignite-zookeeper and ignite-compress into slim package
(in any
>>> > > > > combination).
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > I would also like to know if you want a formal vote
on the
>>> issue.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Regards,
>>> > > > > > --
>>> > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > пн, 27 янв. 2020 г. в 21:13, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >> Alex, could you please list all the modules that
will be
>>> excluded?
>>> > > It
>>> > > > > will
>>> > > > > >> help to confirm we haven't dumped anything essential.
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> -
>>> > > > > >> Denis
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:33 AM Alexey Goncharuk
<
>>> > > > > >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >>> Got it, sounds good!
>>> > > > > >>> Should we consider the list of modules included
in the slim
>>> package
>>> > > > > >>> finalized?
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>> чт, 16 янв. 2020 г. в 13:13, Igor Sapego
<isapego@apache.org
>>> >:
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>>> Alexey, if I understand correctly, Ilya
does not suggest to
>>> > > pre-built
>>> > > > > >>>> binaries, just to ship it with configure
script
>>> pre-generated,
>>> > > which
>>> > > > > >>>> is a common practice for autotools packages.
Building will
>>> be
>>> > > still
>>> > > > > >>>> required for the user, but there will be
less requirements
>>> and
>>> > > > > >>>> possible errors during build.
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>> I like the idea. Let's do this.
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>> Best Regards,
>>> > > > > >>>> Igor
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:57 AM Alexey
Goncharuk <
>>> > > > > >>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>> To me it doesn't really matter if it
will be 'slim' or
>>> 'lite' :)
>>> > > I
>>> > > > > >>> would
>>> > > > > >>>>> not name it 'core' because indeed it
would be confusing
>>> with the
>>> > > core
>>> > > > > >>>>> module name.
>>> > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>> Agree that platforms support is useful,
so I would keep
>>> them as
>>> > > Ilya
>>> > > > > >>>>> suggested. As for the C++ packages pre-build
- let's hear
>>> out
>>> > > Igor's
>>> > > > > >>>>> opinion on this. Pre-built binaries
certainly add
>>> usability, but
>>> > > I am
>>> > > > > >>> not
>>> > > > > >>>>> sure how those binaries should be tested
afterwards.
>>> > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 18:33,
Alexey Kuznetsov <
>>> > > akuznetsov@apache.org
>>> > > > > >>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> I'm +1 for "SLIM" it is a common
name in Docker world.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 9:48 PM
Petr Ivanov <
>>> > > mr.weider@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> +1 for slim binary
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Plus docker-slim
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Plus RPM / DEB packages modularisation
like PHP
>>> distribution —
>>> > > > > >> with
>>> > > > > >>>>> core
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> and lots of integrations / modules.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 15 Jan 2020, at 17:40,
Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>> > > > > >>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hello!
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I think we should name it
"core" since we already have
>>> > > > > >>> ignite-core
>>> > > > > >>>>> and
>>> > > > > >>>>>> it
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> will be confusing. Maybe
we should go full 00s and call
>>> it
>>> > > > > >>> "lite"?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I also think we should keep
both .Net and C++. .Net is
>>> > > runnable
>>> > > > > >>> out
>>> > > > > >>>>> of
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> box
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> which is awesome, and C++
needs building but it is
>>> rather
>>> > > small
>>> > > > > >>> in
>>> > > > > >>>>>> source
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> form.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I also suggest a different
change to build process.
>>> Let's ship
>>> > > > > >>> C++
>>> > > > > >>>>> with
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> automake, etc, already run,
for all binary packaging
>>> options?
>>> > > > > >>>> WDYT? I
>>> > > > > >>>>>> can
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> assist in build process
tuning.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> --
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> ср, 15 янв. 2020 г.
в 17:18, Denis Magda <
>>> dmagda@apache.org>:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Alex,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I'm on your end and
support the proposal. Could you
>>> also
>>> > > > > >> clarify
>>> > > > > >>>> if
>>> > > > > >>>>>> you
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> suggest we keeping or
removing C++ and .NET thick
>>> clients?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Speaking of the naming,
how about titling such
>>> packages as
>>> > > > > >>> 'core'
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> instead
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> of 'slim', i.e., 'apache-ignite-core-{version}'?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> -
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Denis
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020
at 5:17 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Pavel, I believe
these JARs are fully covered by the
>>> list of
>>> > > > > >>>>> modules
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> specified above.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 янв.
2020 г. в 14:50, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>>> > > > > >>>> ptupitsyn@apache.org
>>> > > > > >>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I like the idea,
current distribution is certainly
>>> too big.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Here is a list
of jar files we include in NuGet
>>> package:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cache-api-1.0.0.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> commons-codec-1.11.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> commons-logging-1.1.1.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> h2-1.4.197.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ignite-core-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ignite-indexing-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ignite-shmem-1.0.0.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ignite-spring-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lucene-analyzers-common-7.4.0.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lucene-core-7.4.0.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lucene-queryparser-7.4.0.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> spring-aop-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> spring-beans-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> spring-context-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> spring-core-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> spring-expression-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> spring-jdbc-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> spring-tx-4.3.18.RELEASE.jar
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Those are required
for SQL and Spring configs to work
>>> > > > > >>> properly,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> maybe we want
to include them into the slim distro
>>> as well.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan
15, 2020 at 2:25 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> This is
a reasonable idea.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I think
we should also drop benchmarks/ directory
>>> from
>>> > > that
>>> > > > > >>>>> build,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it's
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 60M
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of (potentially
vulnerable) JARs that are not
>>> needed by an
>>> > > > > >>>>> average
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> developer's
use cases.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15
янв. 2020 г. в 13:10, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would
like to discuss with the community a
>>> possibility
>>> > > > > >> to
>>> > > > > >>>>> create
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> additional
'slim' binary releases and docker
>>> images for
>>> > > > > >>> Apache
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason
is two-fold:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * The
full set of 3rd party libraries distributed
>>> with
>>> > > > > >>> Apache
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> looks
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> too
large for me. I know there is an ongoing
>>> activity
>>> > > > > >>> towards
>>> > > > > >>>>> more
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> clear
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
modularization [1][2][3], but this seems to
>>> be
>>> > > > > >> quite
>>> > > > > >>> a
>>> > > > > >>>>> long
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On the
other hand, creating a slim release may
>>> give an
>>> > > > > >>>> immediate
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> benefit
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
users who are interested in a smaller image.
>>> For
>>> > > > > >>> example,
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> removing
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> benchmarks
alone from the binary release saves 80M.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * As
Ilya Kasnacheev demonstrated [4], the more
>>> 3rd party
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> libraries
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> we
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have,
the more potential vulnerabilities will show
>>> up in
>>> > > > > >>> audit
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> tools.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> may
be a formal barrier for Apache Ignite adoption
>>> and
>>> > > > > >>> moving
>>> > > > > >>>> to
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> production
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for
many users. Having a slim image with the
>>> minimum
>>> > > > > >> number
>>> > > > > >>> of
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (yet
complete enough to fit the majority of
>>> use-cases)
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> significantly
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reduces
this risk.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder
what community thinks regarding this
>>> idea? Given
>>> > > > > >>> the
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> recent
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> study
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of Apache
Ignite use-cases, I suggest the
>>> following list
>>> > > > > >> of
>>> > > > > >>>>>> modules
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> be
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> included
to the slim release/image (a subject to
>>> discuss,
>>> > > > > >> of
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> course):
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * ignite-core
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * ignite-indexing
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * ignite-rest-http
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * ignite-spring
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * ignite-log4j
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * ignite-log4j2
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * ignite-slf4j
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * ignite-urideploy
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * ignite-kubernetes
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> * ignite-opencensus
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > >
>>> > >
>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Ignite-3-0-and-to-be-removed-list-td42330.html
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > >
>>> > >
>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IGNITE-12358-Migrate-ZeroMQ-module-to-ignite-extensions-td45067.html
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > >
>>> > >
>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IGNITE-12361-Migrate-Flume-module-to-ignite-extensions-td45010.html
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [4]
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > >
>>> > >
>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Ignite-2-8-RELEASE-Time-Scope-Manager-td43616i100.html#a44994
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --AG
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> --
>>> > > > > >>>>>> Alexey Kuznetsov
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > >
>>>
>>

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