Re: [DISCUSS] Alignment of values disabling idleTimeout/loadConditioningInterval between Geode client APIs

My concern is you are proposing to change the behavior of an existing geode feature. I think 0 is currently supported for both these properties in the Java client. I would think they cause immediate idle expiration and a very hot load conditioning. Your proposal would make 0 mean something very

[PROPOSAL] RFC for customization of ResourceManager

Please give feedback about this proposal to support customizing how the ResourceManager interacts with the JVM: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Customization+of+ResourceManager%27s+JVM+Interaction

Re: [PROPOSAL] annul support/1.15

+1 From: Nabarun Nag Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 2:36 PM To: geode Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] annul support/1.15 +1 From: Owen Nichols Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 2:12 PM To: geode Subject: [PROPOSAL] annul support/1.15

Re: Proposal: Cut 1.15 release branch from SHA 8f7193c827ee3198ae374101221c02039c70a561

I think we will probably always have this struggle around the time we cut a new release branch and then need to decide what changes on develop to also bring to the release branch. I'm okay with us not including the big cleanup in 1.15 since it is not something we plan on backporting to other

Re: Open socket handles build up over time (leaking?)

as this one :( Still happens in the durable client connection use case and cache server port. Seems to be when an existing durable connection is disconnected and automatically reconnected. I need to do more testing first to know for sure. On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 4:22 PM Darrel Schneider wrote: > > Yes

Re: Open socket handles build up over time (leaking?)

open geode bug ticket? On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 2:22 PM Darrel Schneider wrote: > > I think you found the leak! > My understanding of the code in registerClientInternal (I'm looking at the > current develop branch) is that when it logs the warning "Duplicate durable > cli

Re: Open socket handles build up over time (leaking?)

blems to the client in general. But the server leak eventually causes us to run out of file handles for the process :( Thank you! On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 4:33 PM Leon Finker wrote: > > Hi Darrel, > > Thank you! I'll try to track it! > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 2:42 PM Darrel

Re: Open socket handles build up over time (leaking?)

This link: https://help.mulesoft.com/s/article/How-to-identify-leaked-file-descriptors-that-are-shown-only-as-cant-identify-protocol-in-lsof points out that once the fd gets into this "can't identify protocol" state you can no longer figure out things like what port(s) and addresses are

Re: Failed durable client connection initialization can sometimes leak client socket handle?

The run method on AcceptorImpl is run in a LoggingThread instance (see AcceptorImpl.start()). So any exceptions thrown by AcceptorImpl.run() will be logged as a fatal log message containing ""Uncaught exception in thread" by the LoggingThread. You can see the code that does this in

Re: @TestOnly or @VisibleForTesting

+1 to Donal. And it also provides a way to easily find these places in the future that can have some further refactoring. Just search for @VisibleForTesting and refactor it away. From: Donal Evans Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 9:19 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org

Re: Fw: [DISCUSS] Rebase and Squash Options on Github develop

+1 From: Jens Deppe Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 7:44 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Fw: [DISCUSS] Rebase and Squash Options on Github develop +1 For Naba’s proposal From: Joris Melchior Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 7:40 AM To:

Re: Cleaning up the codebase - use curly braces everywhere

+1 thanks for working on this From: Donal Evans Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 10:22 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Cleaning up the codebase - use curly braces everywhere Hi Geode dev, I've recently been looking at ways to improve code quality in small ways

Re: Question about the write-buffer-size parameter when creating a disk store

I also could not find any code that used the write-buffer-size when allocating a buffer. I did find this method: Oplog.allocateWriteBuf It seems like this would be the allocation of the disk store write buffer. If one is not already allocated then this method checks a sysprop and then defaults

Re: Reminder to use draft mode

+1 to Donal's comments From: Donal Evans Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:44 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Reminder to use draft mode +1 to Naba's PR flow described above. Creating PRs in draft mode is almost always the best choice, as it prevents

Re: Odg: Geode retry/acknowledge improvement

In the geode hang you describe would the forced tcp-reset using iptables have cause the put send message to fail with an exception writing it to the socket? If so then I'd expect the geode Connection class to keep trying to send that message by creating a new connection to the member. It will

Re: Stats deprecations?

It might break something but it should not be too bad. Internal product features are not supposed to read stat values and make decisions based on them because geode allows stat storage to be disabled. Also all these callers of the deprecated methods will be internal. So most of the code that

[Proposal] backport GEODE-8761 to support/1.14

The previous fix for GEODE-8761 that was backported to support/1.14 had a problem. So I'd like to backport the fix for it that can be found in this pull request: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6236

Re: [DISCUSS] removal of experimental Protobuf client/server interface

I'm in favor of its removal. I was working on improving the geode thread monitor and found doing that on the protobuf code was much more complicated. From: Bruce Schuchardt Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 8:16 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSS] removal

Re: [Proposal] Backport GEODE-9045 to support/1.14

+1 From: Hale Bales Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:42 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [Proposal] Backport GEODE-9045 to support/1.14 Hello, I am putting forward the proposal to backport GEODE-9045 (Rename Redis properties and error messages) to

Re: Proposal to backport GEODE-9001 to 1.14

+1 From: John Hutchison Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 10:48 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Proposal to backport GEODE-9001 to 1.14 Hi All- Prosing to include GEODE-9001 in the 1.14 release. Rationale for proposal: This story changes only documentation

Re: [Proposal] Backport GEODE-9029 - Initial support for Redis SLOWLOG command

+1 From: Raymond Ingles Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 4:29 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [Proposal] Backport GEODE-9029 - Initial support for Redis SLOWLOG command Hello – Putting forward the proposal to backport GEODE-9029 (Redis SLOWLOG command

Re: [PROPOSAL]: Backport redis-compatibility changes to 1.14 - GEODE-9021 and GEODE-9023

+1 From: Jens Deppe Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 2:13 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [PROPOSAL]: Backport redis-compatibility changes to 1.14 - GEODE-9021 and GEODE-9023 These changes relate to Redis-compatibility which will be enabled and

Re: Proposal to back port GEODE-8938 to 1.14

+1 From: John Hutchison Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 8:46 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Proposal to back port GEODE-8938 to 1.14 Hi all, Proposal to backport GEODE-8938. Rationale: GEODE-8864, which has previously been approved to be backported (and

[PROPOSAL] backport GEODE-8761 to support/1.14

GEODE-8761 causes geode to detect threads in a cache server that are stuck processing a client request. This can be very helpful in diagnosing hangs. The changes to make this happen are rather simple and I'd like to backport them to 1.14.

Re: [Proposal] BackPort GEODE-8864 to 1.14

+1 From: John Hutchison Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 12:35 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [Proposal] BackPort GEODE-8864 to 1.14 Hi all, I’m proposing to backport compatibility with Redis HSCAN command to 1.14. This functionality does not rely on code

Re: [Proposal] Backport GEODE-8886 to 1.14

+1 From: Mark Hanson Sent: Friday, March 5, 2021 2:48 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [Proposal] Backport GEODE-8886 to 1.14 Hi All, It was discovered that there was a bug with unprocessed events under certain conditions with WAN specifically when old and

[PROPOSAL] backport GEODE-8998 to 1.14

I'm resending this request because my previous request was labelled as junk. I would like to backport GEODE-8998 to 1.14. If fixes an NPE that will cause the geode cluster to not be able to do any cluster messaging if thread monitoring is disabled. This bug has never been released so it would be

Re: [PROPOSAL]: Add GEODE-9000 as Geode 1.14.0 Blocker

+1 I agree this should be fixed in 1.14 From: Ju@N Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 3:30 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [PROPOSAL]: Add GEODE-9000 as Geode 1.14.0 Blocker Hello team, I'd like to propose adding a newly created ticket, *GEODE-9000 [1]*, to the

[PROPOSAL] backport GEODE-8998 to 1.14

I would like to backport GEODE-8998 to 1.14. If fixes an NPE that will cause the geode cluster to not be able to do any cluster messaging if thread monitoring is disabled. This bug has never been released so it would be nice keep it that way. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-8998

Re: [Proposal] Backport GEODE-8958 into 1.14.x, 1.13.x, 1.12.x branches

+1 From: Xiaojian Zhou Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:43 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: [Proposal] Backport GEODE-8958 into 1.14.x, 1.13.x, 1.12.x branches +1 On 3/1/21, 11:30 PM, "Owen Nichols" wrote: That sounds a lot better than never

Re: Proposal: new Geode property CRITICAL_HEAP_PERCENTAGE

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "adding a general critical-heap-percentage parameter". The old xsd allowed it to be configured using xml. gfsh start server supports it with --critical-heap-percentage. And external java apis exist for it as John pointed out. Are you considering adding a

Re: PR process and etiquette

+1 for adding a CONTRIBUTING.MD file From: Sarah Abbey Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 2:07 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette Regarding knowing who to tag in a PR, because I am working on a very specific aspect of Geode, it was

Re: PR process and etiquette

+1 to your idea of using "draft" mode until things are green. Something to be aware of is that if your pr branch has conflicts and it is in draft mode then your pr tests will not run and the pr page will not tell you that conflicts exist. If you see that the pr tests are not actually running

Re: [PROPOSAL] Backport GEODE-8608 to support 1.13, 1.12 branch

+1 From: Anilkumar Gingade Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 1:34 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Backport GEODE-8608 to support 1.13, 1.12 branch +1 After the PR pipeline is completed. -Anil. On 10/14/20, 1:32 PM, "Xiaojian Zhou" wrote:

Please give me access to debug concourse runs

I would like to use "fly" to login to concourse and look at some test runs that are hanging. Could I be given access please? Thanks

Re: TimeIntegrationTest is flaky

Will do. Looks like an easy fix From: Kirk Lund Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 4:25 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: TimeIntegrationTest is flaky Since this is a new test, can we please prioritize fixing it?

Re: [PROPOSAL] Backport GEODE-8423 to support/1.13

+1 From: Sarah Abbey Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 8:59 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [PROPOSAL] Backport GEODE-8423 to support/1.13 The documentation for the Redis API for Geode that will currently be published for 1.13 is not accurate and needs to

[PROPOSAL] backport GEODE-6564 to support/1.13

GEODE-6564 is a memory leak that has impacted users so it would be good to have it in 1.13. It has a simple, low risk, fix.

Re: [PROPOSAL] Postpone Geode 1.14

+1 From: Alexander Murmann Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 4:34 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [PROPOSAL] Postpone Geode 1.14 Hi all, As mentioned on the previous discuss thread, I propose to hold off cutting 1.14 until we have shipped 1.13. Once we have

Re: Proposal to bring GEODE-8016 to support branches

+1 On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:05 PM Dick Cavender wrote: > +1 > > On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 6:42 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > > > Last week develop was successfully migrated from publishing -SNAPSHOT to > > publishing -build.nnn, as discussed on the dev list. > > > > I propose that we bring the same

Re: Discussion - Change Public API Before Initial Release

+1 On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:03 PM Dick Cavender wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:59 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > On May 8, 2020, at 7:57 PM, Robert Houghton > > wrote: > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Fri, May 8, 2020, 18:26 Jacob Barrett wrote: > > > > > >> Hey Ya’ll, > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Geode Redis API Improvements

Experimental features are subject to change or removal. No guarantees are made of backwards compatibility. On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 2:53 PM Donal Evans wrote: > Looks good to me. Fixing broken implementation and providing reliable HA > can only be a good thing. My only concern is the backwards

Re: RFC - Logging to Standard Out

+1 On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:39 PM Jacob Barrett wrote: > Please see RFC for Logging to Standard Out. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Logging+to+Standard+Out > > > > Please comment by 1/21/2020. >

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a couple user APIs dealing with RegionFactory.

The v2 management api allows regions to be created remotely in cluster configuration and on running servers. But it does not allow you to create a region on a client. Non-spring applications can use RegionFactory to create the region on the client side. On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 9:56 AM Dan Smith

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding a couple user APIs dealing with RegionFactory.

Don't expose "InternalCache" on RegionFactory. You probably want it to be "Cache". On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 3:35 PM Mark Hanson wrote: > > In Cache.java > > + RegionFactory createRegionFactory(RegionFactory > regionFactory); > > In RegionFactory.java > + public RegionFactory(InternalCache

Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing singleton PoolManager

+1 On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 4:40 PM Dan Smith wrote: > Hi, > > I wrote up a proposal for deprecating of the singleton PoolManager in favor > of a ClientCache scoped service. Please review and comment on the below > proposal. > > I think this should address the issues that Spring Data Geode and

Re: bug fix needed for release/1.11.0

+1 to include the fix On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 8:54 AM Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > The change passed in SSL benchmark testing and can be cherry-picked into > the release branch. The Benchmark job as a whole failed due to perf > degradation with the Security Manager, but that's a different set of

Re: [vote/discuss]Override stressNewTest for Pull Request #4250?

+1 On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 4:16 PM Jinmei Liao wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 3:30 PM Xiaojian Zhou wrote: > > > I'm curious to see the new stressNew test result too. > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 3:26 PM Owen Nichols > wrote: > > > > > I’ve retriggered StressNew < > > > > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules

+1 On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:08 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > +1 …this has already bitten me a few times > > > On Oct 29, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > It seems we've configured our branch protection rules such that pushing a > > change to a PR that has been approved

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking merge button in PR

I would advise against including "StressNewTestOpenJDK11". I have had trouble with this one when doing something as simple as a method rename. Because that method was called from an old test, StressNewTest ran that old test many times. Not all of our current tests can handle being rerun many

Re: Off-heap support deactivation

p support is an attribute that cannot be changed on a region after > it is created. So then, what is the utility of being able to run "alter > disk-store" with "--off-heap" parameter if that is something that will not > change in the region? > >

Re: Off-heap support deactivation

You can specify this setting at the time you create the region. Geode does not have support for changing it on a region that already exists. Only a few region attributes can be changed on a region that currently exists (see the AttributesMutator API). So how is your region getting created? I think

Re: Backward compatibility issue in 1.10

I agree that it is not needed in 1.10 since this interface is not meant to be implemented by users On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:25 AM Jacob Barrett wrote: > Good find. I agree that it’s fine since it’s not a user implemented > interface. > > > On Sep 19, 2019, at 1:20 AM, Alberto Bustamante Reyes

Re: [Proposal] Make gfsh "stop server" command synchronous

I think it would be good for stop server to confirm in some way that the server has stopped before returning. On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 3:08 PM Mark Hanson wrote: > Hello All, > > I would like to propose that we make the gfsh “stop server” command > synchronous. It is causing some issues with

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Move membership code to a separate gradle sub-project

+1 I added some comments on the wiki On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:34 AM Kirk Lund wrote: > *interfaces -> was supposed to be "implementations" > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:33 AM Kirk Lund wrote: > > > +1 The planned subprojects look good. Thanks for clarifying the > > goals/anti-goals in the RPC,

[DISCUSSION] should the DISTRIBUTED_NO_ACK Scope be deprecated?

Geode currently allows creating non-partitioned regions with a DISTRIBUTED_NO_ACK Scope. This causes distributed operations on the region not to wait for acknowledgement but to just send the op and assume the remote member received it. Currently gfsh gives you no way to create a region

Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api

hought. > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:34 PM Charlie Black wrote: > > > Yes it is common for 0,1 and 2. 3 enters into gray space of is the cost > > of redundancy worth it. > > > > So voting for exposing the number of copies to be the same as Apach

Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api

PM Kirk Lund wrote: > Here's my 2cents: The Geode Management REST API should definitely support > "group" such that creation of a region may target zero, one, or more > groups. > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider > wrote: > > > Is "gr

Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api

ent api for replicates? Should the scope of "global" be supported by the rest management api for replicates? On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:38 AM Darrel Schneider wrote: > The shortcuts support partitioned regions with 0 and 1 redundant copies. > Is redundancies greater than 1 common e

Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api

gt; wrote: > > > > Hey folks, I want to make sure that any other's product's roadmaps have > no > > impact on any decisions we make about Apache Geode. > > > > Thanks! > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:45 AM Darrel Schneider > > > wrote: > &g

Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api

en the way > cache.xml > > > works they might not even bother with the server groups, but I'm not > > sure. > > > > > > I think we should carry forward the existing shortcuts and not go > > backward > > > to the separate attributes. > > > &g

Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api

Keep in mind that the context of the regions in question is the cluster. So these regions would be created on servers. So, for example, does anyone see a need to create PROXY regions on the server? Even if we did not support them on the server, they would still be supported on clients. On Mon,

Re: [Proposal] Refactor the Cache and Region perf stats structure.

internal names (like CachePerfStats -> CacheStats) keep in mind that you should use the same type name when calling "createType" (in this case "CachePerfStats") for backwards compatibility. On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:45 AM Mark Hanson wrote: > See my comments inline.. >

Re: [Proposal] Refactor the Cache and Region perf stats structure.

rtition stat instance per bucket. Are you > saying you’re making that a thing now? > > > >> On Jul 11, 2019, at 9:24 AM, Mark Hanson wrote: > >> > >> Correct. > >> > >>> On Jul 11, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Darrel Schneider > wrote: > &

Re: [Proposal] Refactor the Cache and Region perf stats structure.

Why would a PartitionedRegionStatsImpl contain more than one RegionStats? Are these representing the local buckets? On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 4:57 PM Mark Hanson wrote: > PartitionRegionStatsImpl can contain one to many RegionStats > > > On Jul 10, 2019, at 4:53 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > > > >

Re: Unnecessary uses of final on local variables

I find Bill's argument of using final by default on everything convincing and removing it when you have something that needs to be changed. It is not in keeping with my current practice but I'm willing to change. So I vote -1 to not using "final" on local variables. On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:29

[DISCUSS] changing geode 32-bit counter stats to 64-bit

We have had a couple of tickets that have problems with 32-bit counters changing too fast and causing them to be hard to understand when they wrap around (see GEODE-6425 and GEODE-6834). We have also had problems with some stats being broken because they were changing the 32-bit one when they

what is the best way to update a geode pull request

Something I have noticed is that often when I have requested changes be made to a pull request is that the changes are force pushed ask a single commit to the pr. I would actually prefer that the changes show up as a new commit on the pr instead of everything being rebased into one commit. That

Re: Changing external methods to no longer throw UnsupportedOperationException

plementing this method is adding a feature. It adds a case where one > >>>> could legitimately call this method under new conditions. > >>>> > >>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 10:06 AM, Anilkumar Gingade > > >>>> wrote: > >>&g

Changing external methods to no longer throw UnsupportedOperationException

Is it okay, in a minor release, to implement Region.getStatistics for partitioned regions? See GEODE-2685. The current behavior is for it to always throw UnsupportedOperationException. I doubt that any application is depending on that behavior but it could be. I know we have seen changes like this

Re: [DISCUSS] reduce PR checks to JDK11 only

ful way that works on both JDK8 and 11 > > -Owen > > > On May 17, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Darrel Schneider > wrote: > > > > One problem with doing this, I think, is that we have some tests that are > > disabled unless run on 8. They are the analyze serializabl

Re: [DISCUSS] reduce PR checks to JDK11 only

One problem with doing this, I think, is that we have some tests that are disabled unless run on 8. They are the analyze serializables tests. I'm not sure of the details but I think the "golden" checksums these tests compare to were generated from the byte codes from the jdk 8 class files. The

Re: How to publish client stats on server

setPoolStatisticInterval does cause the client to send some of its stats periodically to the server. But the server puts this information into MBeans and does not write them to the server's statistic archive. This is why the javadoc's on setPoolStatisticInterval refers to "gfmon". Your best bet,

Re: About operating system statistics

The code you have found predates the open source geode project. That code requires a native, platform dependent, jar to be distributed. We decided that geode would be pure java. The code that collects Linux stats is pure java. So I think the code you have found for Solaris, Windows, and OSX has

Re: [Proposal] adding a new type of PdxInstance

extension of the > classless version. > > I agree what Udo is talking about - giving the user better control of > *when* there value is deserialized to a java object - is also valuable, but > a separate feature. > > -Dan > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:09 PM Darrel Schneider > w

Re: [Proposal] adding a new type of PdxInstance

uff, I strongly suggest > using the new solution for JSON objects. > > -Galen > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:49 AM Darrel Schneider > wrote: > > > I like the idea of adding support to the region configuration that lets > > users control how it stores the data. But e

Re: [Proposal] adding a new type of PdxInstance

ses we want to deserialize the key and in some > cases we don't want to. In some regions we want to leave the value in > serialized form and in others we don't. The point is, why limit to a > single flag. > > --Udo > > On 1/15/19 10:17, Darrel Schneider wrote: > > As part of GEODE-6

[Proposal] adding a new type of PdxInstance

As part of GEODE-6272 we realized we need a way to use a PdxInstance as key for a Region entry. The problem with the current PdxInstance behavior is that in some members the key may be seen as a PdxInstance and in others seen as an instance of a domain class. This inconsistency can lead to

creating Thread, ThreadFactory, or Executor instances in geode

When a thread runs, if it throws an exception that is not caught, then that exception will just silently kill your thread. This can make it very hard to diagnose what is happening. To remedy this situation in geode, a long time ago it introduced a LoggingThreadGroup class. As long as you created

Re: [DISCUSS] test code style (particularly logging)

For simple single threaded tests System.out would do the job. For a multi-threaded test I have found the logging framework to be helpful because of the thread id and the timestamps. On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:50 PM Dale Emery wrote: > As long as the stdout is available in the test results, I’m

Re: [geode-dev] Gfsh Start Server option "disable-exit-when-out-of-memory"

You can go ahead and improve the help text immediately On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:00 AM Kenneth Howe wrote: > +1 to deprecating the existing option and removing it in 2.0. The default > then will be to retain the addition of the appropriate -X JVM argument > unless/until we choose to implement

Re: DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

what about "testUtilities" instead of "commonTest"? On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote: > I'd like to suggest that we refactor our current test source set, which > contains both unit, integration and distributed tests, into distinct source > sets, test, integrationTest,

Re: Simple serialize/deserialize test using DataSerializers

BlobHelper ends up calling DataSerializer.writeObject. The nice thing about BlobHelper is can call org.apache.geode.internal.util.BlobHelper.serializeToBlob(Object) and org.apache.geode.internal.util.BlobHelper.deserializeBlob(byte[]) without needing to write any of your own code the create the

Re: Handling files and user.dir in tests

Should geode have a single method it uses to create File instances? That way the code that determines the parent dir could be in one place. On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Patrick Rhomberg wrote: > The ClusterStartupRule, LocatorStarterRule, and ServerStarterRule rules

how to get a good commit comment when using gitbox to merge a pull request

I noticed that the git log message for a pull request I just merged was lacking what I expected it to pick up from the single revision in the pull request. It ended up with a message like this: Merge pull request #1165 from dschneider-pivotal/feature/GEODE-4091 GEODE-4091: add

Re: Default branch for geode should be 'develop'

+1 On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Jens Deppe wrote: > Currently, github has the default branch for apache/geode set to 'master'. > (which is why you need to point the relevant branch to 'develop' for every > new PR). > > Do we agree that this should be set to 'develop'?

Re: [DISCUSS] FunctionAdapter incompatible serialVersionUID

+1 to not removing deprecated apis in minor releases. The semver policy Alexander describes seems reasonable. In the past of we have had something deprecated for a long time we have felt free to remove it whenever we want but I think the semver policy is a better way to decide when we are free to

Re: Rename DM and DistributionManager

+1 On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Kirk Lund wrote: > I'd like to do some renaming to use better class names including: > > GEODE-3965: Rename DistributionManager to ClusterDistributionManager and DM > to DistributionManager > > The results would be: > > * interface =

Re: Internal package name structure

+1 for #2 On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Kirk Lund wrote: > Sounds good. > > Right now the User API for Statistics is in org.apache.geode (where it's > been since before my time) but we could deprecate it there and move it to > org.apache.geode.statistics. > > On Mon, Oct 9,

Re: Review Request 62180: refactor away GemfireCacheImpl.getInstance from lucene function

DM.getCache() does not exist. - Darrel Schneider On Sept. 7, 2017, 5:43 p.m., xiaojian zhou wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache

Re: Review Request 62164: GEODE-3566 Moving a bucket during rebalancing does not update overflow stats

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/62164/#review184876 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Darrel Schneider On Sept. 7, 2017, 9:56

Re: Review Request 61895: GEDOE-3516: TXManagerImpl.tryResume call may add itself again into the waiting thread queue

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61895/#review184709 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Darrel Schneider On Sept. 6, 2017, 11

Re: [Discuss] Building objects with the Factory pattern or the Builder pattern. Adding the fluent model?

In the geode java apis you would create a CacheFactory (or ClientCacheFactory), configure it fluently, and then call create at the end. So even though we call them factories in the geode java apis, they use the Builder pattern and also support the fluent model in that you could do this:

Re: Review Request 61895: GEDOE-3516: TXManagerImpl.tryResume call may add itself again into the waiting thread queue

a tryResume call that ends up not resuming because of the timeout but does not poll the queue again and unpark the next waiter. - Darrel Schneider On Aug. 25, 2017, 9:53 a.m., Eric Shu wrote: > > --- > This is an automatic

Re: Review Request 61895: GEDOE-3516: TXManagerImpl.tryResume call may add itself again into the waiting thread queue

t; > (Updated Aug. 24, 2017, 1:13 p.m.) > > > Review request for geode, anilkumar gingade, Darrel Schneider, Lynn Gallinat, > and Nick Reich. > > > Bugs: GEODE-3516 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3516 > > > Repository: geode > >

Re: Nightly build failures caused by attempted use of default ports

I like the sound of #1: 1) use Docker for AcceptanceTest and IntegrationTest targets? Does anyone know of a downside to running these tests in docker? On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Jared Stewart wrote: > I think we just need to have AcceptanceTest (and possibly

Re: Review Request 61852: GEODE-3507 actualRedundantCopies stat in org.apache.geode.internal.cache.PartitionedRegionStats can go negative

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61852/#review183626 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Darrel Schneider On Aug. 23, 2017, 9:55

Re: Review Request 61722: GEODE-3047 Atomic creation flag is not set if the region is recoverd from the disk.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61722/#review183507 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Darrel Schneider On Aug. 18, 2017, 9:58

Re: Need to know complete execution time for geode-core Junit tests

For test004StartServerFailsFastOnMissingGemFirePropertiesFile I think this test just needs to be improved for Windows. The test has an assertion that the failure message contains a certain string. On Windows the message contains "C:" and "\" which the test does not expect. Instead of the test

Re: Review Request 61281: GEODE-3379 Geode transaction may commit on a secondary bucket after bucket rebalance

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61281/#review182006 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Darrel Schneider On Aug. 1, 2017, 2:41

  1   2   3   4   >