[DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

christopher.l.shannon
Hi Everyone,

I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating LevelDB
in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no longer
recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are still
using it but discourage its use.

The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where bugs
are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to be
several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I don't
think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted out.
Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes ignored.

Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus should
be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a replicated
store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system
master/slave setup.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

rajdavies
I agree.

> On 15 Nov 2016, at 11:45, Christopher Shannon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating LevelDB
> in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no longer
> recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are still
> using it but discourage its use.
>
> The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where bugs
> are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to be
> several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I don't
> think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted out.
> Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes ignored.
>
> Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus should
> be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a replicated
> store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system
> master/slave setup.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

Claus Ibsen
In reply to this post by christopher.l.shannon
+1


On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Christopher Shannon
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating LevelDB
> in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no longer
> recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are still
> using it but discourage its use.
>
> The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where bugs
> are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to be
> several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I don't
> think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted out.
> Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes ignored.
>
> Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus should
> be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a replicated
> store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system
> master/slave setup.



--
Claus Ibsen
-----------------
http://davsclaus.com @davsclaus
Camel in Action 2: https://www.manning.com/ibsen2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

tabish121@gmail.com
In reply to this post by christopher.l.shannon
+1

On 11/15/2016 06:45 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating LevelDB
> in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no longer
> recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are still
> using it but discourage its use.
>
> The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where bugs
> are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to be
> several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I don't
> think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted out.
> Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes ignored.
>
> Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus should
> be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a replicated
> store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system
> master/slave setup.
>


--
Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

Matt Pavlovich-2
In reply to this post by christopher.l.shannon
+1


On 11/15/16 6:45 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating LevelDB
> in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no longer
> recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are still
> using it but discourage its use.
>
> The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where bugs
> are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to be
> several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I don't
> think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted out.
> Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes ignored.
>
> Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus should
> be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a replicated
> store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system
> master/slave setup.
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

Justin Bertram-2
In reply to this post by christopher.l.shannon
+1

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Shannon" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:45:41 AM
Subject: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

Hi Everyone,

I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating LevelDB
in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no longer
recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are still
using it but discourage its use.

The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where bugs
are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to be
several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I don't
think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted out.
Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes ignored.

Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus should
be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a replicated
store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system
master/slave setup.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

clebertsuconic
+1

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Shannon" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:45:41 AM
> Subject: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating LevelDB
> in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no longer
> recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are still
> using it but discourage its use.
>
> The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where bugs
> are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to be
> several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I don't
> think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted out.
> Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes ignored.
>
> Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus should
> be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a replicated
> store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system
> master/slave setup.



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

bennetelli
+1

> Am 15.11.2016 um 15:16 schrieb Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>:
>
> +1
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Christopher Shannon" <[hidden email]>
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:45:41 AM
>> Subject: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation
>>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating LevelDB
>> in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no longer
>> recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are still
>> using it but discourage its use.
>>
>> The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where bugs
>> are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to be
>> several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I don't
>> think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted out.
>> Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes ignored.
>>
>> Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus should
>> be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a replicated
>> store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system
>> master/slave setup.
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

dejanb
+1

Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
http://sensatic.net/about

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Bennet Schulz <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1
>
> > Am 15.11.2016 um 15:16 schrieb Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]>:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Justin Bertram <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Christopher Shannon" <[hidden email]>
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:45:41 AM
> >> Subject: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation
> >>
> >> Hi Everyone,
> >>
> >> I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating
> LevelDB
> >> in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no
> longer
> >> recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are still
> >> using it but discourage its use.
> >>
> >> The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where bugs
> >> are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to be
> >> several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I don't
> >> think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted
> out.
> >> Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes ignored.
> >>
> >> Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus
> should
> >> be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a replicated
> >> store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system
> >> master/slave setup.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Clebert Suconic
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

jbonofre
+1

Regards
JB

⁣​

On Nov 16, 2016, 12:15, at 12:15, Dejan Bosanac <[hidden email]> wrote:

>+1
>
>Regards
>--
>Dejan Bosanac
>http://sensatic.net/about
>
>On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Bennet Schulz <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> > Am 15.11.2016 um 15:16 schrieb Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]>:
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Justin Bertram
><[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Christopher Shannon" <[hidden email]>
>> >> To: [hidden email]
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:45:41 AM
>> >> Subject: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation
>> >>
>> >> Hi Everyone,
>> >>
>> >> I just wanted to ask what people think about officially
>deprecating
>> LevelDB
>> >> in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is
>no
>> longer
>> >> recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are
>still
>> >> using it but discourage its use.
>> >>
>> >> The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus
>where bugs
>> >> are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems
>to be
>> >> several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I
>don't
>> >> think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is
>sorted
>> out.
>> >> Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes
>ignored.
>> >>
>> >> Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus
>> should
>> >> be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a
>replicated
>> >> store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file
>system
>> >> master/slave setup.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Clebert Suconic
>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

Robbie Gemmell
In reply to this post by christopher.l.shannon
Seems like a good idea to me.

On 15 November 2016 at 11:45, Christopher Shannon
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating LevelDB
> in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no longer
> recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are still
> using it but discourage its use.
>
> The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where bugs
> are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to be
> several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I don't
> think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted out.
> Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes ignored.
>
> Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus should
> be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a replicated
> store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system
> master/slave setup.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

Jim Gomes
No objections. I was never clear on what advantages LevelDB was supposed to
offer anyway.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016, 3:45 AM Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Seems like a good idea to me.
>
> On 15 November 2016 at 11:45, Christopher Shannon
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating
> LevelDB
> > in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no
> longer
> > recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are still
> > using it but discourage its use.
> >
> > The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where bugs
> > are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to be
> > several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I don't
> > think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted
> out.
> > Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes ignored.
> >
> > Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus should
> > be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a replicated
> > store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system
> > master/slave setup.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

Richard Kettelerij
+1 (non-binding).

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> No objections. I was never clear on what advantages LevelDB was supposed to
> offer anyway.
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016, 3:45 AM Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Seems like a good idea to me.
> >
> > On 15 November 2016 at 11:45, Christopher Shannon
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Hi Everyone,
> > >
> > > I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating
> > LevelDB
> > > in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no
> > longer
> > > recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are still
> > > using it but discourage its use.
> > >
> > > The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where
> bugs
> > > are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to be
> > > several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I don't
> > > think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted
> > out.
> > > Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes ignored.
> > >
> > > Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus
> should
> > > be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a
> replicated
> > > store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system
> > > master/slave setup.
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

gtully
makes sense to me.  keep the focus on the current default store.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 at 11:14 Richard Kettelerij <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1 (non-binding).
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > No objections. I was never clear on what advantages LevelDB was supposed
> to
> > offer anyway.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016, 3:45 AM Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Seems like a good idea to me.
> > >
> > > On 15 November 2016 at 11:45, Christopher Shannon
> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > Hi Everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating
> > > LevelDB
> > > > in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no
> > > longer
> > > > recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are
> still
> > > > using it but discourage its use.
> > > >
> > > > The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where
> > bugs
> > > > are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to
> be
> > > > several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I
> don't
> > > > think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is sorted
> > > out.
> > > > Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes
> ignored.
> > > >
> > > > Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus
> > should
> > > > be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a
> > replicated
> > > > store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file system
> > > > master/slave setup.
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

christopher.l.shannon
Based on the feedback I will update the wiki later today to document that
LevelDB is being deprecated and no longer is recommended or supported.

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Gary Tully <[hidden email]> wrote:

> makes sense to me.  keep the focus on the current default store.
>
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 at 11:14 Richard Kettelerij <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding).
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Jim Gomes <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > No objections. I was never clear on what advantages LevelDB was
> supposed
> > to
> > > offer anyway.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016, 3:45 AM Robbie Gemmell <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Seems like a good idea to me.
> > > >
> > > > On 15 November 2016 at 11:45, Christopher Shannon
> > > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > I just wanted to ask what people think about officially deprecating
> > > > LevelDB
> > > > > in our 5.x broker and update our documentation to say that it is no
> > > > longer
> > > > > recommended.  We can leave it in the code base for people who are
> > still
> > > > > using it but discourage its use.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main reason is that KahaDB continues to be the main focus where
> > > bugs
> > > > > are fixed and not much attention is paid to LevelDB. There seems to
> > be
> > > > > several issues with corruption (especially with replication) so I
> > don't
> > > > > think it should be a recommended store unless the stability is
> sorted
> > > > out.
> > > > > Unfortunately nearly every Jira reported against LevelDB goes
> > ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that Artemis exists and supports replication I think the focus
> > > should
> > > > > be primarily on making Artemis the focus for users who need a
> > > replicated
> > > > > store or to encourage the use of something like a shared file
> system
> > > > > master/slave setup.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

wcrowell
Does anyone know what release of ActiveMQ when LevelDB will be completely removed?  I did not see it slated for 5.15+ or 6.0.0.  I am not asking for it to be removed.  I just wanted to know what release (or timeframe) when it would be removed.  Thanks.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] LevelDB deprecation

christopher.l.shannon
There aren't any definitive plans to remove it at this point. I think it's
fine if it sticks around as long as people know it's not supported
anymore.  If there comes a point where keeping it around causes issues then
I think at that point it would be time to remove it.  For example if the
LevelDB module has dependencies that are too old or not compatible with the
rest of the code base it would probably be time to consider dropping it.


On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:39 AM, wcrowell <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Does anyone know what release of ActiveMQ when LevelDB will be completely
> removed?  I did not see it slated for 5.15+ or 6.0.0.  I am not asking for
> it to be removed.  I just wanted to know what release (or timeframe) when
> it
> would be removed.  Thanks.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> nabble.com/DISCUSS-LevelDB-deprecation-tp4719227p4728213.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>