[Discussion] Mnemonic roadmap proposal

[Yanhui ZHAO <yz...@apache.org>]

Hi Mnemonic folks

As you know that we hope to reinstate mnemonic project from current stage. To have a clear scope and goal for the project to continue move on, Gang has drafted the following roadmap and timelines, and I have added my own comments.

This by no means is that we have already made decisions on the project (that is why we hesitate to show it on the first place), but just would like to share our thoughts on the project with the community. We sincerely hope you can provide your inputs/insights, and proposals as well, as I can see some folks are still interested in contributing.

BR

Yanhui

Project goal:
To deliver a pre-product durable object model library working with persistent memory (we are only focusing on persistent memory right? Do we consider other storage options? I remember we also use HD and SSDs) and high performance storage at the end of next year.

Project objectives
1) A stable and efficient CI system (agreed)
2) A improved documentation and website (The github page and web definitely need lots of work. From a user's prospective, there is no information from us on why our product will benefit them. We may need to stress on easy adoptions and performance benchmark to highlight our core values)
3) Integrated with Bytebuddy (used for code generation? should be helpful but not as important as #2)
4) Supporting JDK14 and leveraging the feature of  non-volatile mapped byte buffers (incubator) (highly agreed, question on whether our JDK14 support will conflict with other modules such as Spark/Hadoop. Mutiple version of JDK might reduce adoption for stability concerns.)
5) Adding Redis as one of backend of durable object (highly agreed )
6) Verified code quality and testing (agreed, test cases need to be improved to reflect the project core values, and it is the interface between us and our potential customers)
7) new language support such as python, golang, etc

Highlight the key values of our project is (1) provide unified interface for storage(memory) backend, (2) remove se-des process to improve the access speed thus improving read/write performance

Project Milestones
1) Dec. 2020, CI documentation and website (v0.14.0)
2) May. 2021, Bytebuddy and JDK14 (v0.15.0)
3) Oct. 2020, Redis backend and quality (v0.16.0)

Project Communication
1) Weekly regular meeting 30mins - 60 mins (how to coordinate with ppls from different time zones?)
2) Event based release meeting
3) Reporting meeting
4) Maillist, Jira, PR based discussion
5) Management meeting on demand (need to absorb more PMC members)

Re: [Discussion] Mnemonic roadmap proposal

["Gang(Gary) Wang" <ga...@apache.org>]

Thank you ShenLi and Chenyang, both of your feedback are much appreciated,
Let's further prioritize the objects 1,2, 7 in the coming meeting. Thanks.

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 9:29 PM Chenyang Li <mo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for the roadmap, I would support object 2 and 7 as I
> believe documentation and website are important for a project to grow and
> supporting new languages like python will improve the
> usability dramatically.
>
> Regards,
> Chenyang
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 9:01 PM Yanhui ZHAO <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Li, and welcome.
> >
> > Look forward to your inputs and contributions!
> >
> > BR
> >
> > Yanhui
> > ________________________________
> > From: Li Shen <sh...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2020 8:56 PM
> > To: dev@mnemonic.apache.org <de...@mnemonic.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Discussion] Mnemonic roadmap proposal
> >
> > Thank you for drafting the roadmap!  I strongly agree with object 1 and 2
> > because they could make developing on the project more scalable as well
> as
> > help onboarding new contributors.  In the meantime, I would like to join
> > future weekly meetings and start to make contributions to the project.
> >
> > Best,
> > Li
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 2:05 PM Gang(Gary) Wang <ga...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you for the comments.
> > >
> > > my comments in-line fyr.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 9:24 AM Yanhui ZHAO <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Mnemonic folks
> > > >
> > > > As you know that we hope to reinstate mnemonic project from current
> > > stage.
> > > > To have a clear scope and goal for the project to continue move on,
> > Gang
> > > > has drafted the following roadmap and timelines, and I have added my
> > own
> > > > comments.
> > > >
> > > > This by no means is that we have already made decisions on the
> project
> > > > (that is why we hesitate to show it on the first place), but just
> would
> > > > like to share our thoughts on the project with the community. We
> > > sincerely
> > > > hope you can provide your inputs/insights, and proposals as well, as
> I
> > > can
> > > > see some folks are still interested in contributing.
> > > >
> > > > BR
> > > >
> > > > Yanhui
> > > >
> > > > Project goal:
> > > > To deliver a pre-product durable object model library working with
> > > > persistent memory (we are only focusing on persistent memory right?
> Do
> > we
> > > > consider other storage options? I remember we also use HD and SSDs)
> and
> > > > high performance storage at the end of next year.
> > > >
> > > > Project objectives
> > > >
> > > Add one: Organizing a sustainable PMC group.
> > >
> > > > 1) A stable and efficient CI system (agreed)
> > > > 2) A improved documentation and website (The github page and web
> > > > definitely need lots of work. From a user's prospective, there is no
> > > > information from us on why our product will benefit them. We may need
> > to
> > > > stress on easy adoptions and performance benchmark to highlight our
> > core
> > > > values)
> > > >
> > > Gary: Completely agreed, my 2 cents, it is also a difficult work, we
> may
> > > need to simplify the documentation and improve the code comments for
> > > document generation as well.
> > >
> > > > 3) Integrated with Bytebuddy (used for code generation? should be
> > helpful
> > > > but not as important as #2)
> > > >
> > > Gary: Yes, I recall one of our contributors mentioned it before, the
> > > Bytebuddy looks a very promising alternative way for code generation,
> > but I
> > > cannot 100% sure about fitting our project yet, currently, we are using
> > the
> > > Javapoet, probably we can keep using it if it is not very necessary so
> > far.
> > >
> > > > 4) Supporting JDK14 and leveraging the feature of  non-volatile
> mapped
> > > > byte buffers (incubator) (highly agreed, question on whether our
> JDK14
> > > > support will conflict with other modules such as Spark/Hadoop.
> Mutiple
> > > > version of JDK might reduce adoption for stability concerns.)
> > > >
> > > Gary: I think the dependency of Spark/Hadoop showcases need to upgrade
> > > accordingly. the Spark/Hadoop frameworks may already have changed so
> the
> > > stability is a real concern as you mentioned.
> > >
> > > > 5) Adding Redis as one of backend of durable object (highly agreed )
> > > > 6) Verified code quality and testing (agreed, test cases need to be
> > > > improved to reflect the project core values, and it is the interface
> > > > between us and our potential customers)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 7) new language support such as python, golang, etc
> > > >
> > > > Highlight the key values of our project is (1) provide unified
> > interface
> > > > for storage(memory) backend, (2) remove se-des process to improve the
> > > > access speed thus improving read/write performance
> > > >
> > > > Project Milestones
> > > > 1) Dec. 2020, CI documentation and website (v0.14.0)
> > > > 2) May. 2021, Bytebuddy and JDK14 (v0.15.0)
> > > > 3) Oct. 2020, Redis backend and quality (v0.16.0)
> > > >
> > > > Project Communication
> > > > 1) Weekly regular meeting 30mins - 60 mins (how to coordinate with
> ppls
> > > > from different time zones?)
> > > > 2) Event based release meeting
> > > > 3) Reporting meeting
> > > > 4) Maillist, Jira, PR based discussion
> > > > 5) Management meeting on demand (need to absorb more PMC members)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
>         < = >
> LESS IS MORE
>

Re: [Discussion] Mnemonic roadmap proposal

[Chenyang Li <mo...@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the roadmap, I would support object 2 and 7 as I
believe documentation and website are important for a project to grow and
supporting new languages like python will improve the
usability dramatically.

Regards,
Chenyang

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 9:01 PM Yanhui ZHAO <yz...@apache.org> wrote:

> Thanks Li, and welcome.
>
> Look forward to your inputs and contributions!
>
> BR
>
> Yanhui
> ________________________________
> From: Li Shen <sh...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2020 8:56 PM
> To: dev@mnemonic.apache.org <de...@mnemonic.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discussion] Mnemonic roadmap proposal
>
> Thank you for drafting the roadmap!  I strongly agree with object 1 and 2
> because they could make developing on the project more scalable as well as
> help onboarding new contributors.  In the meantime, I would like to join
> future weekly meetings and start to make contributions to the project.
>
> Best,
> Li
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 2:05 PM Gang(Gary) Wang <ga...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for the comments.
> >
> > my comments in-line fyr.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 9:24 AM Yanhui ZHAO <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mnemonic folks
> > >
> > > As you know that we hope to reinstate mnemonic project from current
> > stage.
> > > To have a clear scope and goal for the project to continue move on,
> Gang
> > > has drafted the following roadmap and timelines, and I have added my
> own
> > > comments.
> > >
> > > This by no means is that we have already made decisions on the project
> > > (that is why we hesitate to show it on the first place), but just would
> > > like to share our thoughts on the project with the community. We
> > sincerely
> > > hope you can provide your inputs/insights, and proposals as well, as I
> > can
> > > see some folks are still interested in contributing.
> > >
> > > BR
> > >
> > > Yanhui
> > >
> > > Project goal:
> > > To deliver a pre-product durable object model library working with
> > > persistent memory (we are only focusing on persistent memory right? Do
> we
> > > consider other storage options? I remember we also use HD and SSDs) and
> > > high performance storage at the end of next year.
> > >
> > > Project objectives
> > >
> > Add one: Organizing a sustainable PMC group.
> >
> > > 1) A stable and efficient CI system (agreed)
> > > 2) A improved documentation and website (The github page and web
> > > definitely need lots of work. From a user's prospective, there is no
> > > information from us on why our product will benefit them. We may need
> to
> > > stress on easy adoptions and performance benchmark to highlight our
> core
> > > values)
> > >
> > Gary: Completely agreed, my 2 cents, it is also a difficult work, we may
> > need to simplify the documentation and improve the code comments for
> > document generation as well.
> >
> > > 3) Integrated with Bytebuddy (used for code generation? should be
> helpful
> > > but not as important as #2)
> > >
> > Gary: Yes, I recall one of our contributors mentioned it before, the
> > Bytebuddy looks a very promising alternative way for code generation,
> but I
> > cannot 100% sure about fitting our project yet, currently, we are using
> the
> > Javapoet, probably we can keep using it if it is not very necessary so
> far.
> >
> > > 4) Supporting JDK14 and leveraging the feature of  non-volatile mapped
> > > byte buffers (incubator) (highly agreed, question on whether our JDK14
> > > support will conflict with other modules such as Spark/Hadoop. Mutiple
> > > version of JDK might reduce adoption for stability concerns.)
> > >
> > Gary: I think the dependency of Spark/Hadoop showcases need to upgrade
> > accordingly. the Spark/Hadoop frameworks may already have changed so the
> > stability is a real concern as you mentioned.
> >
> > > 5) Adding Redis as one of backend of durable object (highly agreed )
> > > 6) Verified code quality and testing (agreed, test cases need to be
> > > improved to reflect the project core values, and it is the interface
> > > between us and our potential customers)
> > >
> >
> >
> > > 7) new language support such as python, golang, etc
> > >
> > > Highlight the key values of our project is (1) provide unified
> interface
> > > for storage(memory) backend, (2) remove se-des process to improve the
> > > access speed thus improving read/write performance
> > >
> > > Project Milestones
> > > 1) Dec. 2020, CI documentation and website (v0.14.0)
> > > 2) May. 2021, Bytebuddy and JDK14 (v0.15.0)
> > > 3) Oct. 2020, Redis backend and quality (v0.16.0)
> > >
> > > Project Communication
> > > 1) Weekly regular meeting 30mins - 60 mins (how to coordinate with ppls
> > > from different time zones?)
> > > 2) Event based release meeting
> > > 3) Reporting meeting
> > > 4) Maillist, Jira, PR based discussion
> > > 5) Management meeting on demand (need to absorb more PMC members)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
        < = >
LESS IS MORE

Re: [Discussion] Mnemonic roadmap proposal

[Yanhui ZHAO <yz...@apache.org>]

Thanks Li, and welcome.

Look forward to your inputs and contributions!

BR

Yanhui
________________________________
From: Li Shen <sh...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2020 8:56 PM
To: dev@mnemonic.apache.org <de...@mnemonic.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Discussion] Mnemonic roadmap proposal

Thank you for drafting the roadmap!  I strongly agree with object 1 and 2
because they could make developing on the project more scalable as well as
help onboarding new contributors.  In the meantime, I would like to join
future weekly meetings and start to make contributions to the project.

Best,
Li

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 2:05 PM Gang(Gary) Wang <ga...@apache.org> wrote:

> Thank you for the comments.
>
> my comments in-line fyr.
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 9:24 AM Yanhui ZHAO <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mnemonic folks
> >
> > As you know that we hope to reinstate mnemonic project from current
> stage.
> > To have a clear scope and goal for the project to continue move on, Gang
> > has drafted the following roadmap and timelines, and I have added my own
> > comments.
> >
> > This by no means is that we have already made decisions on the project
> > (that is why we hesitate to show it on the first place), but just would
> > like to share our thoughts on the project with the community. We
> sincerely
> > hope you can provide your inputs/insights, and proposals as well, as I
> can
> > see some folks are still interested in contributing.
> >
> > BR
> >
> > Yanhui
> >
> > Project goal:
> > To deliver a pre-product durable object model library working with
> > persistent memory (we are only focusing on persistent memory right? Do we
> > consider other storage options? I remember we also use HD and SSDs) and
> > high performance storage at the end of next year.
> >
> > Project objectives
> >
> Add one: Organizing a sustainable PMC group.
>
> > 1) A stable and efficient CI system (agreed)
> > 2) A improved documentation and website (The github page and web
> > definitely need lots of work. From a user's prospective, there is no
> > information from us on why our product will benefit them. We may need to
> > stress on easy adoptions and performance benchmark to highlight our core
> > values)
> >
> Gary: Completely agreed, my 2 cents, it is also a difficult work, we may
> need to simplify the documentation and improve the code comments for
> document generation as well.
>
> > 3) Integrated with Bytebuddy (used for code generation? should be helpful
> > but not as important as #2)
> >
> Gary: Yes, I recall one of our contributors mentioned it before, the
> Bytebuddy looks a very promising alternative way for code generation, but I
> cannot 100% sure about fitting our project yet, currently, we are using the
> Javapoet, probably we can keep using it if it is not very necessary so far.
>
> > 4) Supporting JDK14 and leveraging the feature of  non-volatile mapped
> > byte buffers (incubator) (highly agreed, question on whether our JDK14
> > support will conflict with other modules such as Spark/Hadoop. Mutiple
> > version of JDK might reduce adoption for stability concerns.)
> >
> Gary: I think the dependency of Spark/Hadoop showcases need to upgrade
> accordingly. the Spark/Hadoop frameworks may already have changed so the
> stability is a real concern as you mentioned.
>
> > 5) Adding Redis as one of backend of durable object (highly agreed )
> > 6) Verified code quality and testing (agreed, test cases need to be
> > improved to reflect the project core values, and it is the interface
> > between us and our potential customers)
> >
>
>
> > 7) new language support such as python, golang, etc
> >
> > Highlight the key values of our project is (1) provide unified interface
> > for storage(memory) backend, (2) remove se-des process to improve the
> > access speed thus improving read/write performance
> >
> > Project Milestones
> > 1) Dec. 2020, CI documentation and website (v0.14.0)
> > 2) May. 2021, Bytebuddy and JDK14 (v0.15.0)
> > 3) Oct. 2020, Redis backend and quality (v0.16.0)
> >
> > Project Communication
> > 1) Weekly regular meeting 30mins - 60 mins (how to coordinate with ppls
> > from different time zones?)
> > 2) Event based release meeting
> > 3) Reporting meeting
> > 4) Maillist, Jira, PR based discussion
> > 5) Management meeting on demand (need to absorb more PMC members)
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [Discussion] Mnemonic roadmap proposal

[Li Shen <sh...@gmail.com>]

Thank you for drafting the roadmap!  I strongly agree with object 1 and 2
because they could make developing on the project more scalable as well as
help onboarding new contributors.  In the meantime, I would like to join
future weekly meetings and start to make contributions to the project.

Best,
Li

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 2:05 PM Gang(Gary) Wang <ga...@apache.org> wrote:

> Thank you for the comments.
>
> my comments in-line fyr.
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 9:24 AM Yanhui ZHAO <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mnemonic folks
> >
> > As you know that we hope to reinstate mnemonic project from current
> stage.
> > To have a clear scope and goal for the project to continue move on, Gang
> > has drafted the following roadmap and timelines, and I have added my own
> > comments.
> >
> > This by no means is that we have already made decisions on the project
> > (that is why we hesitate to show it on the first place), but just would
> > like to share our thoughts on the project with the community. We
> sincerely
> > hope you can provide your inputs/insights, and proposals as well, as I
> can
> > see some folks are still interested in contributing.
> >
> > BR
> >
> > Yanhui
> >
> > Project goal:
> > To deliver a pre-product durable object model library working with
> > persistent memory (we are only focusing on persistent memory right? Do we
> > consider other storage options? I remember we also use HD and SSDs) and
> > high performance storage at the end of next year.
> >
> > Project objectives
> >
> Add one: Organizing a sustainable PMC group.
>
> > 1) A stable and efficient CI system (agreed)
> > 2) A improved documentation and website (The github page and web
> > definitely need lots of work. From a user's prospective, there is no
> > information from us on why our product will benefit them. We may need to
> > stress on easy adoptions and performance benchmark to highlight our core
> > values)
> >
> Gary: Completely agreed, my 2 cents, it is also a difficult work, we may
> need to simplify the documentation and improve the code comments for
> document generation as well.
>
> > 3) Integrated with Bytebuddy (used for code generation? should be helpful
> > but not as important as #2)
> >
> Gary: Yes, I recall one of our contributors mentioned it before, the
> Bytebuddy looks a very promising alternative way for code generation, but I
> cannot 100% sure about fitting our project yet, currently, we are using the
> Javapoet, probably we can keep using it if it is not very necessary so far.
>
> > 4) Supporting JDK14 and leveraging the feature of  non-volatile mapped
> > byte buffers (incubator) (highly agreed, question on whether our JDK14
> > support will conflict with other modules such as Spark/Hadoop. Mutiple
> > version of JDK might reduce adoption for stability concerns.)
> >
> Gary: I think the dependency of Spark/Hadoop showcases need to upgrade
> accordingly. the Spark/Hadoop frameworks may already have changed so the
> stability is a real concern as you mentioned.
>
> > 5) Adding Redis as one of backend of durable object (highly agreed )
> > 6) Verified code quality and testing (agreed, test cases need to be
> > improved to reflect the project core values, and it is the interface
> > between us and our potential customers)
> >
>
>
> > 7) new language support such as python, golang, etc
> >
> > Highlight the key values of our project is (1) provide unified interface
> > for storage(memory) backend, (2) remove se-des process to improve the
> > access speed thus improving read/write performance
> >
> > Project Milestones
> > 1) Dec. 2020, CI documentation and website (v0.14.0)
> > 2) May. 2021, Bytebuddy and JDK14 (v0.15.0)
> > 3) Oct. 2020, Redis backend and quality (v0.16.0)
> >
> > Project Communication
> > 1) Weekly regular meeting 30mins - 60 mins (how to coordinate with ppls
> > from different time zones?)
> > 2) Event based release meeting
> > 3) Reporting meeting
> > 4) Maillist, Jira, PR based discussion
> > 5) Management meeting on demand (need to absorb more PMC members)
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [Discussion] Mnemonic roadmap proposal

["Gang(Gary) Wang" <ga...@apache.org>]

Thank you for the comments.

my comments in-line fyr.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 9:24 AM Yanhui ZHAO <yz...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Mnemonic folks
>
> As you know that we hope to reinstate mnemonic project from current stage.
> To have a clear scope and goal for the project to continue move on, Gang
> has drafted the following roadmap and timelines, and I have added my own
> comments.
>
> This by no means is that we have already made decisions on the project
> (that is why we hesitate to show it on the first place), but just would
> like to share our thoughts on the project with the community. We sincerely
> hope you can provide your inputs/insights, and proposals as well, as I can
> see some folks are still interested in contributing.
>
> BR
>
> Yanhui
>
> Project goal:
> To deliver a pre-product durable object model library working with
> persistent memory (we are only focusing on persistent memory right? Do we
> consider other storage options? I remember we also use HD and SSDs) and
> high performance storage at the end of next year.
>
> Project objectives
>
Add one: Organizing a sustainable PMC group.

> 1) A stable and efficient CI system (agreed)
> 2) A improved documentation and website (The github page and web
> definitely need lots of work. From a user's prospective, there is no
> information from us on why our product will benefit them. We may need to
> stress on easy adoptions and performance benchmark to highlight our core
> values)
>
Gary: Completely agreed, my 2 cents, it is also a difficult work, we may
need to simplify the documentation and improve the code comments for
document generation as well.

> 3) Integrated with Bytebuddy (used for code generation? should be helpful
> but not as important as #2)
>
Gary: Yes, I recall one of our contributors mentioned it before, the
Bytebuddy looks a very promising alternative way for code generation, but I
cannot 100% sure about fitting our project yet, currently, we are using the
Javapoet, probably we can keep using it if it is not very necessary so far.

> 4) Supporting JDK14 and leveraging the feature of  non-volatile mapped
> byte buffers (incubator) (highly agreed, question on whether our JDK14
> support will conflict with other modules such as Spark/Hadoop. Mutiple
> version of JDK might reduce adoption for stability concerns.)
>
Gary: I think the dependency of Spark/Hadoop showcases need to upgrade
accordingly. the Spark/Hadoop frameworks may already have changed so the
stability is a real concern as you mentioned.

> 5) Adding Redis as one of backend of durable object (highly agreed )
> 6) Verified code quality and testing (agreed, test cases need to be
> improved to reflect the project core values, and it is the interface
> between us and our potential customers)
>


> 7) new language support such as python, golang, etc
>
> Highlight the key values of our project is (1) provide unified interface
> for storage(memory) backend, (2) remove se-des process to improve the
> access speed thus improving read/write performance
>
> Project Milestones
> 1) Dec. 2020, CI documentation and website (v0.14.0)
> 2) May. 2021, Bytebuddy and JDK14 (v0.15.0)
> 3) Oct. 2020, Redis backend and quality (v0.16.0)
>
> Project Communication
> 1) Weekly regular meeting 30mins - 60 mins (how to coordinate with ppls
> from different time zones?)
> 2) Event based release meeting
> 3) Reporting meeting
> 4) Maillist, Jira, PR based discussion
> 5) Management meeting on demand (need to absorb more PMC members)
>
>
>