add clarifications to docs in relation to #418 #420
Conversation
|
CLA Assistant Lite bot All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ |
| to create temporal records for them. In general, the whole FIWARE stack, being | ||
| based on a micro-service architecture, cannot be regarded as real time | ||
| in case you have requirements on guaranteed delivery in a given amount of time. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd also add a para along the lines of the following, just to make sure people out there don't interpret our clarification as advice not to use FiWare because of poor performance:
However, even though hard real time may not be FIWARE's forte, in our experience a properly tuned FIWARE stack can perform extremely well and handle very demanding IoT workloads without a glitch.
I've also added a comment to #418 along these lines just to make sure it's crystal clear what we're talking about here is a corner case (hard real time) whereas in the majority of cases FIWARE provides all the performance you'll ever need :-)
|
@chicco785 excellent work! I'd only add one more thing---see my review comment. I think it's already very clear the way you put it, I'm just being paranoid I suppose... |
|
@chicco785: looks like our travis env isn't happy but that's got nothing to do w/ your PR, is that okay w/ you if i go ahead and merge? |
|
apparent
apparently something changed in docker hub, i am trying to fix the problem here: #421 |
|
cool, let's merge #421 first then, so we can have a clean merge here too. thanks!! |
provide some background information on data availability after write
chicco785
force-pushed
the
update-faq-418
branch
from
6a4ce07
to
aefdced
Compare
Proposed changes
Provide some background information on data availability after write
Types of changes
What types of changes does your code introduce to the project: Put
an
xin the boxes that applyChecklist
feature works
downstream modules
Further comments
N/A