Yakov,

did you had time to do another review round of ignite-642?

Thanks!

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladis...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yakov,
>
> I've finished the initialization tests for ignite-642 (and moved
> serialization test from GridCacheLockAbstractTest to
> IgniteLockAbstractSelfTest).
> Please check the commit and let me know if you spot anything else.
> Thanks!
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladis...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Yakov,
>>
>> I reviewed the changes in ignite-642 and it looks good to me, but I have
>> one question.
>> Can you please look at my comment in ignite-642 ticket?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Vladisav
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladis...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, I'll look into it later today, or tomorrow at the latest
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
>>>>
>>>> Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and provide
>>>> comments?
>>>>
>>>> --Yakov
>>>>
>>>> 2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>:
>>>>
>>>> > Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize
>>>> the
>>>> > changes.
>>>> >
>>>> > --Yakov
>>>> >
>>>> > 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Guys,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Couple of questions:
>>>> >>  - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
>>>> >> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw
>>>> OOME in
>>>> >> any case.
>>>> >>  - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
>>>> >> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked
>>>> around
>>>> >> in
>>>> >> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
>>>> >> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
>>>> >> ​
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to