In CacheEntryImplEx class use ver.globalTime() in
@Override public long updateTime() {
return ver.globalTime();
}
Than is better to replace this variable?
> 3 марта 2017 г., в 19:19, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> написал(а):
>
> Maxim,
>
> I think the next implementation will be good enough:
>
> public IgniteUuid asGridUuid() {
> return new IgniteUuid(new UUID(nodeOrderDrId, topVer), order);
> }
>
>
> Serialization/deserialization of GridCacheVersion.globalTime field
> should be removed.
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Kozlov Maxim <dreamx....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Alexey,
>>
>> public IgniteUuid asGridUuid() {
>> return new IgniteUuid(new UUID(nodeOrderDrId << 32, topVer << 32), order);
>> }
>>
>> So you want to change or not?
>>
>> And
>> - GridCacheVersion.writeTo(ByteBuffer buf, MessageWriter writer)
>> - GridCacheVersion.readFrom(ByteBuffer buf, MessageReader reader)
>>
>> use globalTime variable, must be removed case 0: (in both methods) or
>> replace globalTime?
>>
>>
>>
>>> 2 марта 2017 г., в 16:58, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> написал(а):
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Removing of asGridUuid() method can lead to much code changes but it
>>> should be avoided on this step.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Alexey Goncharuk
>>> <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Maxim,
>>>>
>>>> I see several usages of asGridUuid() method, so I would just remove global
>>>> time and use nodeOrderDrId and topVer as different parts of high and low
>>>> parts of the embedded UUID.
>>>>
>>>> --AG
>>>>
>>>> 2017-03-02 12:39 GMT+03:00 Kozlov Maxim <dreamx....@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Andrey,
>>>>>
>>>>> When removed parameter globalTime, in method:
>>>>>
>>>>> public IgniteUuid asGridUuid() {
>>>>> return new IgniteUuid(new UUID(((long)topVer << 32) | nodeOrderDrId,
>>>>> globalTime), order);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> globalTime parameter replaced by something or remove this method?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2 марта 2017 г., в 12:07, Kozlov Maxim <dreamx....@gmail.com>
>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrey,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review PR again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1 марта 2017 г., в 18:47, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> написал(а):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that it is ok.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Kozlov Maxim <dreamx....@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ok. What do you say for the rest?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1 марта 2017 г., в 18:15, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that during renaming we should not lose "Atomic" prefix.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Kozlov Maxim <dreamx....@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Andrey, ok.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also remove in the modules/platform/dotnet
>>>>> CacheAtomicWriteOrderMode.cs?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rename classes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheAtomicNearCacheSelfTest.startGrids ->
>>>>> GridCacheAtomicNearCacheSelfTest.startGridsLocal (commit)
>>>>>>>>>> IgniteCacheAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderWithStoreInvokeTest ->
>>>>> IgniteCacheWithStoreInvokeTest
>>>>>>>>>> IgniteCacheAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderInvokeTest ->
>>>>> IgniteCacheInvokeTest
>>>>>>>>>> IgniteCacheAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderNearEnabledStoreValueTest ->
>>>>> IgniteCacheNearEnabledStoreValueTest
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderNearRemoveFailureTest ->
>>>>> GridCacheNearRemoveFailureTest
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderRemoveFailureTest ->
>>>>> GridCacheRemoveFailureTest
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderFailoverSelfTest ->
>>>>> GridCacheFailoverSelfTest
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheValueConsistencyAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderNearEnabledSelfTest
>>>>> -> GridCacheValueConsistencyNearEnabledSelfTest
>>>>>>>>>> CacheContinuousQueryAsyncFailoverAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderSelfTest ->
>>>>> CacheContinuousQueryAsyncFailoverSelfTest
>>>>>>>>>> CacheContinuousQueryFailoverAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderSelfTest ->
>>>>> CacheContinuousQueryFailoverSelfTest
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheAtomicNearCacheSelfTest.testNoBackupsPrimaryWriteOrder ->
>>>>> GridCacheAtomicNearCacheSelfTest.testNoBackups
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheAtomicNearCacheSelfTest.testWithBackupsPrimaryWriteOrder
>>>>> -> GridCacheAtomicNearCacheSelfTest.testWithBackups
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Remove classes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IgniteCacheAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderStoreValueTest
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheReplicatedAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderMultiNodeFullApiSelfTest
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderMultiNodeFullApiSelfTest
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderMultiNodeP2PDisabledFullApiSelfTest
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheAtomicPrimaryWrityOrderOffHeapMultiNodeFullApiSelfTest
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderOffHeapFullApiSelfTest
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderFullApiSelfTest
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderReloadAllSelfTest
>>>>>>>>>> IgniteCachePutRetryAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderSelfTest
>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheValueConsistencyAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderSelfTest
>>>>>>>>>> IgniteCacheAtomicPrimaryWriteOrderExpiryPolicyTest
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ok? :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 марта 2017 г., в 2:04, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it should be removed. If somebody use entry last update time
>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>> for conflict resolving) they should store this time as entry field.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>>>>>>>>>>> <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we still need GridClockSyncProcessor?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:26 AM, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this setting doesn't make sense anymore. So we need remove
>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> related methods.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also there is component called GridClockSyncProcessor that also
>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be removed. It will lead to removing globalTime field from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> GridCacheVersion class and some related methods.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Kozlov Maxim <
>>>>> dreamx....@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Valentin,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then there is no need for setting CacheConfiguration.
>>>>> atomicWriteOrderMode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think, remove it and and related methods?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 28 февр. 2017 г., в 2:49, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In case we remove the CLOCK mode, I think we should remove the
>>>>> enum
>>>>>>>>>>>>> too, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well as configuration properties and other code using this
>>>>> enum. Having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enum with one value doesn't make sense to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Kozlov Maxim <
>>>>> dreamx....@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After remove CLOCK mode, CacheAtomicWriteOrderMode enum
>>>>> contains now
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one value PRIMARY. Andrey Gura, proposition remove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CacheAtomicWriteOrderMode enum. Will there be something
>>>>> special for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose is enum?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4587 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4587>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max K.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max K.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Max K.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>> Max K.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> Max K.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> Max K.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Max K.
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
Best Regards,
Max K.
