toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I agree we would have to clearly state all limitations the adapter has so everyone is aware of them.
Would love to hear additional feedback from the community on the topic of making this adapter official.
On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 3:21:22 AM UTC-4, f....@... wrote:
thanks for offering your support!
I did indeed put a lot of effort into my fork (rngcntr), but I worked alone and rewrote a significant amount of code so it definitely lacks an in-depth review. Other than that, most of what I did was stress testing and finding bugs that need to be fixed. There are stil some open issues but all in all I'm quite happy with the current state of the storage adapter.
What still worries me is the effects of the transaction time limit of FDB. Officially supporting FDB as a storage backend would currently leave the user in charge of handling these problems. Retrying can not solve all problems as some queries will never make it through the 5s limit, even when tried over and over again. This results in the FDB adapter only supporting a subset of all possible queries and this should be stated clearly in case it is officially released.