ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Ignite 3.0 development approach
Date Tue, 24 Nov 2020 17:04:07 GMT
If we use Java15 for development, can the resulting package be used from a
Java11 app (the latest LTS)?

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:51 PM Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Jave15 looks awesome.
>
> * Hidden classes [1] can be used by codegenerators.
> * Records [2] can replace boilerplate code like IgniteBiTuple, GridTupleX.
>
> [1] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/371
> [2] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/384
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:38 PM Alexey Zinoviev <zaleslaw.sin@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Java 15 is better, VarHandles, ForeignMemory access and so on.
> >
> > In both cases, I support the Java version 11 and higher for the
> > development!
> >
> > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:21, Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Let's add maven plugins  for sanity checks at the early stage.
> > > I've created a ticket for this [1].
> > >
> > > Also, I've found initial pom.xml has a target version Java 8.
> > > Do we intend to move to Java 11 (or may be next LTS) and drop Java 8 in
> > > Ignite 3.0?
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13751
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:40 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I went ahead and created the repository [1]. I also configured a
> > TeamCity
> > > > project [2] that runs all available JUnit tests on every PR creation
> or
> > > > update. It also sends the status update to GitHub so that it's
> > reflected
> > > in
> > > > the PR itself so that we can do merges directly from GitHub. Basic
> > steps
> > > to
> > > > make a change are described on the Wiki page [3].
> > > >
> > > > Let me know if you have any questions.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3
> > > > [2] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project/ignite3
> > > > [3]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache+Ignite+3.0#ApacheIgnite3.0-DevelopmentProcess
> > > >
> > > > -Val
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:24 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks, guys. It looks like we are much closer to the consensus
> now.
> > I
> > > > > totally on board with the plan, but I would also like to address
> the
> > > > > short-term needs. As I've already mentioned earlier, there are
> > several
> > > > > active IEPs, but we still don't have even a preliminary technical
> > > process
> > > > > for working on these IEPs. I believe this might be frustrating for
> > the
> > > > > folks who would like to commit code.
> > > > >
> > > > > The scope we agreed on is quite big, and it will surely take
> > > significant
> > > > > time to implement all the changes and stabilize them. Therefore,
> it's
> > > > clear
> > > > > to me that we will have to maintain 2.x and 3.x in parallel for
> quite
> > > > some
> > > > > time - this needs to be addressed somehow. I'm convinced that
> having
> > a
> > > > > separate repo is the ONLY way to do that, and so far, I haven't
> heard
> > > any
> > > > > clear alternatives or reasons why we shouldn't do this.
> > > > >
> > > > > That said, I'm inclined to proceed with this in the next few days
> - I
> > > > will
> > > > > create a repo and describe the process (which we, of course, can
> > > discuss
> > > > > and modify going forward). Let's, at the very least, try and see
> > where
> > > it
> > > > > leads us.
> > > > >
> > > > > If someone has any concrete alternative options on how to we can
> > > maintain
> > > > > two major versions in parallel, let's have another voice discussion
> > > this
> > > > > Friday. If we do the meeting, we should set it up with a clear goal
> > to
> > > > make
> > > > > a decision. Please let me know if there is interest in this.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Val
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:31 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Good,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think we have an intermediate agreement on the scope and
> > > significance
> > > > of
> > > > >> the changes we want to make. I suggest creating separate
> discussion
> > > > >> streams
> > > > >> and calls for each of the suggested topics so that:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>    - It is clear for the community what is the motivation of
the
> > > stream
> > > > >>    (this includes both functional targets and technical debt
> issues
> > > > >> pointed
> > > > >>    out by Sergey)
> > > > >>    - Who is planning to take an active part in each of the streams
> > > (i.e.
> > > > >>    the 'design committee', as Sergey suggested)
> > > > >>    - What are the intermediate and final goals for each of the
> > streams
> > > > >>    - What are the cross-stream interactions and how we integrate
> > them
> > > > >>    - How each of the streams will be integrated with the current
> > > > codebase
> > > > >>    based on the above (here is where we will see whether drop-in
> or
> > > > >>    incremental approaches make more sense)
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

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