ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org>
Subject Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0
Date Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:56:52 GMT
Pavel,

I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
stronger platform-independance,
in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation (int32, uint64)? For
example
"long" can mean a different type on different platforms and it's easy to
confuse
them (happens often when using ODBC for example).

Best Regards,
Igor


On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org> wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> I think we should support unsigned data types:
> uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
>
> Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
> and with the growing number of thin clients this is important.
>
> For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we store unsigned values
> as signed internally,
> but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata, binary objects, etc.
> (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a class, but not with
> BinaryObject.GetField)
>
> Any objections?
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Denis,
> >
> > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> > However, we will allow users to configure static schema along with
> 'strict'
> > schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on client nodes
> against
> > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the only way to do
> it.
> > One can find a few articles on the internet on how to enable reflection
> in
> > GraalVM.
> >
> > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe someone who is
> > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper workaround. Or
> > I'll do it a bit later.
> > If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write it's own
> > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose any internal
> > classes to the public.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > >
> > > Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > >
> > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a native
> image
> > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > >
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first approach).
> > > >
> > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar with the
> > > > proposal [1].
> > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas.
> > > >
> > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout
> > described
> > > > in the proposal.
> > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects, the
> first
> > > one
> > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already use in
> > > Ignite
> > > > and the second one generates serializer for particular user class and
> > > uses
> > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and have
> > reflection-based
> > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with the
> first
> > > > one.
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3] waiting for
> > the
> > > > assignee.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes
> > > > implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
> > > >
> > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local key/value
> > > > classes pair.
> > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we should
> > > validate a
> > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair or if
> a
> > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the key-value pair
> > > > should be validated against the latest version and local mapping
> should
> > > be
> > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends on
> schema
> > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new mapping
> should
> > > be
> > > > created and a new schema version should be propagated to the cluster.
> > > >
> > > > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we
> operate
> > > with
> > > > tuples.
> > > > As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema version,
> > > then
> > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last version
> > without
> > > > desialization.
> > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous
> versions
> > > (if
> > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting schema
> > changes
> > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > >
> > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > [2]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many bright
> > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > >
> > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
> > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for
the
> > > "table"
> > > > > and
> > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start
the
> > > thread
> > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the
> > > > suggested
> > > > > > change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing.
All it
> > > means
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline
> fields
> > > > into a
> > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other
> words,
> > > > > nested
> > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing
> > something.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but
I'm
> not
> > > sure
> > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated
with
> > SQL,
> > > > but
> > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate
> > > > discussion
> > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed
as
> > column
> > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema,
or stored
> as
> > > > BLOBs
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the
inlining
> of
> > > > POJOs
> > > > > >>> is
> > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout
> the
> > > IEP.
> > > > > Is
> > > > > >>> it
> > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would
replace
> > > those
> > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache"
should go
> > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that
DDL is
> > > > supported
> > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> -
> > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko
<
> > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic
updates we
> > step
> > > > > into
> > > > > >>> the
> > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we
can as well
> > > support
> > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it
from the
> first
> > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > >>> In
> > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and
> "schema-last"
> > > > modes.
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk
<
> > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is
mostly
> regarding
> > > the
> > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing
the name to
> > > > > whatever
> > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema
sounds
> great. I
> > > > will
> > > > > >>> make
> > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle
on the
> name.
> > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan
Pavlukhin <
> > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different.
Yes, schema
> > > > evolution
> > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I
see a main
> difference
> > in
> > > > > "how
> > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common
SQL approach
> > > schema-first.
> > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are
clearly separated
> and
> > it
> > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing
untended schema
> > > > changes
> > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting
user permissions to
> > > > change
> > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists
in advance and
> all
> > > the
> > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly
what is proposed.
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1]
also assumes that
> > > > schema
> > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data.
Is not it more
> > similar
> > > to
> > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main
concern so far is
> > > mostly
> > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses
me then others
> > > might
> > > > be
> > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer
to "dynamic or
> > liquid
> > > or
> > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > >>> be
> > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko
<
> > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that.
Schema-first means that
> > > > schema
> > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data
is compliant with it -
> > > that's
> > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions
prohibiting
> > changes
> > > to
> > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan
Pavlukhin <
> > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with
terminology. My
> > > > understanding
> > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X
Semi Structured Data). Can
> > we
> > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach
as a kind of
> "schema-first"?
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis
Magda <
> > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
please elaborate on the relation
> > > > between
> > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
for Hibernate running on top of
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
what is missing exactly on the
> > > Ignite
> > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding,
all you need is SQL API
> > > which
> > > > we
> > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all
the ORM integrations use
> > Ignite
> > > > SQL
> > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can
easily translate an Entity
> > > > object
> > > > > >>> into
> > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement
that lists all the object's
> > > > fields.
> > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration
is already based on the
> Ignite
> > > SQL
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the
schema-first approach is
> > > > supported.
> > > > > >>> That
> > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability
issues.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate
integration as well
> > during
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's
used a lot but Spring Data
> is
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll
loop you in as long as you've
> > > > started
> > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut
Data
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > >>> >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges.
Just watch this
> > discussion.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at
5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko
> <
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking,
I believe that the schema-first
> > > > > approach
> > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue
if duplicate fields in key and
> > > value
> > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created
for a cache, not for an
> > object,
> > > as
> > > > > it
> > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema
will define whether there is
> a
> > > > > primary
> > > > > >>> key
> > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are
included in case there is one.
> > Any
> > > > API
> > > > > >>> that
> > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant
with this, so it becomes
> > fairly
> > > > easy
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set
of records, rather than
> key-value
> > > > pairs.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
please elaborate on the relation
> > > > between
> > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
for Hibernate running on top of
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
what is missing exactly on the
> > > Ignite
> > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding,
all you need is SQL API
> > > which
> > > > we
> > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020
at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
adding another point to the
> > > motivations
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the
ORM frameworks such as Spring
> Data,
> > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
storage engine requires to
> > distinguish
> > > > key
> > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
complicate the usage of Ignite
> with
> > > > those
> > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if
a key object comprises several
> > > fields).
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > >>> on
> > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice
if the new schema-first approach
> > > allows
> > > > > us
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
object when it comes to the ORMs.
> > With
> > > no
> > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a
key and value. Just want to be sure
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential
public APIs that would support
> > the
> > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin
> > Kulichenko <
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the
big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0
> is
> > > the
> > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
approach". To add more clarity,
> > I've
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
change:
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take
a look and let me know if there are
> > any
> > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions,
or objections.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

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