On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 10:45 AM Dale Emery wrote:
>
> > Dale - are you suggesting a ConnectionPoolService that returns
> ConnectionPool instances?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Would that mean ConnectionPool would extend Pool and we would deprecate
> Pool itself?
>
> Maybe extend. I worry about extending, for t
Reading over the docs for gfsh - I don't support removing any functionality
from a top level command perspective.It should be noted that I didn't
go deeper then the top level commands, there might be some sub option on
some command that could be dropped or tweaked.
Charlie
On Mon, Dec 9, 201
+1
Aaron
> On Dec 6, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Jacob Barrett wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Dec 6, 2019, at 9:40 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
>>
>> Regarding changing PoolManager to
>> an interface, I guess originally I wasn't thinking we would still be
>> backwards compatible if we did that. But as I think about it
> I imagine once the Management v2 API's are GA (and feature complete), I
don't see a reason why /gfsh/ should not be a stand alone module. It
would definitely have to be updated to use the new v2 API's, which
should not have any direct dependency on geode-core any more.
There also is a big questi
Hi,
I agree with your proposal/question,
and implementation will follow it.
BR,
Mario
Šalje: Jens Deppe
Poslano: 9. prosinca 2019. 15:55
Prima: dev@geode.apache.org
Predmet: Re: Odg: Proposal of new config property "ssl-server-name-extension"
Hi Mario,
I did h
Hi Mario,
I did have a question / suggestion about this proposal (possibly on a
different thread). Would you mind responding to that before proceeding
please. I'll just paste it in here too.
> Jens Deppe
> Tue, Nov 19, 4:42 PM
> to dev
> I'd like to add my comment from the original PR here agai
Hi,
Since this proposal is open for almost three weeks,
and we have 2 plus one,
We will continue with proposed solution.
Regards,
Mario
Šalje: Mario Ivanac
Poslano: 19. studenog 2019. 12:26
Prima: dev@geode.apache.org
Predmet: Proposal of new config property "
