Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock

2016-03-18 Thread Vladisav Jelisavcic 
Hi Yakov,

yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed.

Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
release).

Best regrads,
Vladisav



On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov 
wrote:

> Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Yakov Zhdanov, Director R
> *GridGain Systems*
> www.gridgain.com
>
> 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov :
>
> > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> >
> > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> >
> > Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
> > Can you please respond in ticket?
> >
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
> > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov :
> >
> >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to
> >> myself.
> >>
> >> --Yakov
> >>
> >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic :
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
> >>> release.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Vladisav
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Folks,
> >>> >
> >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
> same
> >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
> changed
> >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
> held.
> >>> The
> >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
> >>> can be
> >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> currently
> >>> > works.
> >>> >
> >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my
> >>> first
> >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led
> >>> to
> >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
> >>> re-test
> >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> structures?
> >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
> >>> done
> >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[GitHub] ignite pull request: Test PR

2016-03-18 Thread ashutakGG 
GitHub user ashutakGG opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/557

Test PR

WebSphere tx support

You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/ashutakGG/incubator-ignite 
websphere-tx-support

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/557.patch

To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:

This closes #557


commit 8135802238ece095159c41e8f695526e3ddb0bc3
Author: ashutak 
Date:   2016-03-16T13:45:28Z

WebSphereTmFactory + war 
(http://127.0.0.1:9080/ignite-weblogic-test/jta-test)




---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-2853) Job processor should be stopped earlier than service processor

2016-03-18 Thread Valentin Kulichenko (JIRA) 
Valentin Kulichenko created IGNITE-2853:
---

 Summary: Job processor should be stopped earlier than service 
processor
 Key: IGNITE-2853
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2853
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Bug
  Components: general
Affects Versions: 1.5.0.final
Reporter: Valentin Kulichenko
Assignee: Valentin Kulichenko
 Fix For: 1.6


It's a common use case when a compute job accesses service. Currently, if such 
job is cancelled, it can't do this gracefully, because service is already 
stopped.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

[GitHub] ignite pull request: GG-11041 - Add ability to unwrap MutableEntry...

2016-03-18 Thread dkarachentsev 
Github user dkarachentsev closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/565


---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---