Yes, IGNITE-3191 resolves the problem mentioned in IGNITE-2626. No configuration parameter needed. We have system property to control this, but only for compatibility reasons - without it users might have lost ability to migrate from [1.x] to 1.[x+1] if they persist objects outside of Ignite.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > Taras, Vovan, > > Did IGNITE-3191 [1] automatically solve the problem described in [2]? If > it’s so I would close [2]. > > BTW, did we add a new configuration parameter as a part of [1] dev > activity? > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3191 > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2626 > > — > Denis > > > On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:31 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi! about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2626. Im sure > this > > ticket is cloned from https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3191, > > because it was implemented there. And im confused with code status : > fields > > order is somehow deprecated. This ticket - > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4695 must have covered > fields > > order. > > -- > > > > *Best Regards,* > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey* > >
