Conversation
|
Thanks @fh-ms , not sure if you saw the comments from the Minio folks: |
|
will try it soon! |
As I understand, there is a difference between the official AWS API and Minio. Therefore, we might need a different AFS implementation for Minio. Adding a special casing into the existing AWS implementations is not a good idea. |
|
@fh-ms @zdenek-jonas - My hope was to reuse the AWS S3 and not to develop special ES blob module for Minio java API (at least not just yet, maybe later) The majority of use cases for Minio are as a local AWS 100% S3-compatible replacement development environment (so that developers do not have to have AWS subscription while developing), although some businesses do deploy Minio servers as prod system too. It is a much bigger story though: AWS is so dominant in the marketplace, that every cloud block storage software claims S3 API compatibility, as long as you "don't do very weird stuff." A much bigger goal is to access RedHat's Ceph block storage servers and others via AWS SDK S3 API, which are all pressured to be, and are claimed to be broadly S3 compatible. This would immediately enable EclipseStore on a number of modern cheap alternative cloud providers, such as (just serach for "S3 compatible" on their page):
All of the above block storage providers compete with AWS S3 on prices, response time ... but also eliminate "the AWS egress fee" - a very nasty cost, if you decide to transfer your Eclipse Store data out of AWS (AWS ingress is free, of course!) In fact, AWS S3 is so dominant, that even Google and Azure are pressured to implement compatibility with S3 (to attract AWS customers!) So, theoretically, you would not even need the blob apis in EclipseStore! I think cleaning up your AWS S3 interface will allow EclipseStore to "kill many birds with one stone" :-) Ideally, you may want to develop a generic S3 Eclipse Store module using SWD SDK v2, and just inherit from it for specific modules, if they require something specific at all. |
(cherry picked from commit 2493ed4)
See #188 (comment)