Re: Question about INDEX_THRESHOLD_SIZE

should be smarter but that requires additional changes to make elegant… From: Jason Huynh Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 at 1:03 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Question about INDEX_THRESHOLD_SIZE Hi Mario, Digging a little bit more, I’m assuming the CompiledLike probably should

Re: Question about INDEX_THRESHOLD_SIZE

evaluate projection */); ​BR, Mario ____ Šalje: Jason Huynh Poslano: 11. ožujka 2022. 22:06 Prima: dev@geode.apache.org Predmet: Re: Question about INDEX_THRESHOLD_SIZE As an fyi, in the past we disabled applying limits at the index level for range indexes. I’m

Re: Question about INDEX_THRESHOLD_SIZE

through the code, perhaps it’s hitting a different index type (I’d think a map index but that probably is backed by CompactRangeIndexes for each key…) From: Jason Huynh Date: Friday, March 11, 2022 at 12:47 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Question about INDEX_THRESHOLD_SIZE I think https://g

Re: Question about INDEX_THRESHOLD_SIZE

I think https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/7010 may have changed what that property represented. I believe it was some arbitrary threshold to abort using index look ups (if the intermediate results were small, it was deemed faster to just iterate through and not do a lookup – at least from

Re: [VOTE] - Apache Geode Kafka Connector 1.1.0 - Take 2

+1 for this release On 1/6/22, 9:22 AM, "Dan Smith" wrote: Quibbles: - artifact naming does not follow standard naming convention of THING-VERSION.tgz and THING-VERSION-src.tgz (also Geode decided to stop distributing .zip files years ago) - not based on the latest Geode 1.12

Re: Creating index failed

Hi Mario, A lot of the indexing code pre-dates GFSH. The behavior you are seeing is when an index is created on a partition region. When creating an index on a partition region, the idea is that the user wanted to index all the data in the region. So the server will let all other servers

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.14.0.RC2

+1 * Downloaded binary * Ran gfsh (started locator and server, created region and did put operation) * Release notes look good On 9/1/21, 8:56 AM, "Dave Barnes" wrote: +1 docs - Verified API docs - Built Geode User Guide using script, verified - Built Geode Native

Re: [VOTE] Requiring final keyword on every parameter and local variable

, 4:28 PM, "Robert Houghton" wrote: Does this really "add noise" instead of "add clarity and precision" ? -Robert On 4/14/21, 4:25 PM, "Jason Huynh" wrote: Just to confirm for myself... final doesn't necessarily make object

Re: [VOTE] Requiring final keyword on every parameter and local variable

Just to confirm for myself... final doesn't necessarily make object immutable.. the reference is immutable but if it refers to say a list, the list is still mutable. So if I see a final keyword, I should only expect the reference not to change, but it won't guarantee that the object isn't

Re: Question about Map indexes

Hi Alberto, I haven't checked the PR yet, just read through the email. The first thought that comes to mind is when someone does a != query. The index still has to supply the correct answer to the query (all entries with null or undefined values possibly) I'll try to think of other cases

Re: Inputs for efficient querying

Hi Ankit, I haven't had time to try this out but hopefully the answers get you on the correct path... > 1. How can i form an OQL query (syntax) to fetch the latest row based on > MAX(versionId). 1.) maybe a nested query or use order by? “Select x,y,z from /data-region d where

Re: Kafka Summit:- Geode Kafka Connector

Hi Ashish, Are you asking for someone to present, or are you asking if it is ok for you to present? I don't think there are any restrictions on presenting, hopefully someone will correct me if I am wrong. I think the call for papers is still open but closing relatively soon? So if you

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.13.1.RC2

+1 Ran gfsh, created cluster, create region On 11/16/20, 10:29 AM, "Dan Smith" wrote: +1 Looks good to me! I ran the geode-release-check against it, looked for binary artifacts, checked the pipeline. -Dan From: Dick Cavender Sent:

[PROPOSAL] Backport usability improvements to support 1.13 branch

Hello, I’d like to merge the pull request: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5524 into a support 1.13 branch. The commits are focused on a few usability improvements for Geode that were thought to have made it into 1.13 but actually did not make it. What this pull request back ports: *

Re: [Discuss] Cache.close synchronous is not synchronous, but code still expects it to be....

The isClosed flag and method might be used currently more as an isClosing. The GemFireCacheImpl.isClosed() method is actually returning isClosing. Whatever change to isClosed that will be made, will have to properly handle cases where it's meant to be treated as isClosing(). On Tue, Apr 14, 2020

Re: RFC - Gateway sender to deliver transaction events atomically to receivers

I put some comments on the proposal on the wiki. btw what are we voting on? Just curious as I wasn't sure if we were voting for the current proposal or whether we should continue this discussion? I like the idea of having transactional ops be sent together in a batch if possible and it would be

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Github Wiki and Issus are now activated on geode-kafka-connector

Awesome, thanks for doing all the leg work! On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:42 PM Nabarun Nag wrote: > Hi, > > Issues are wiki pages are now active on the geode-kafka-connector > repository. Thank you all for the kind votes. > > Regards > Nabarun Nag >

Re: [DISCUSS] Client side configuration for a SNI proxy

+1 On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 7:27 AM Joris Melchior wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 6:33 PM Dan Smith wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > A new RFC is up for this feature > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Client+side+configuration+for+a+SNI+proxy > > . > > > > > >

[PROPOSAL] Include fix for GEODE-7763 into release 1.12.0

Hello Dev list, I'd like to include a fix for GEODE-7763 in release 1.12.0. The change removes the call to exportValue, preventing a serialization, when no clients are waiting for the specific event. The reason why I think it should be in the release is that we noticed a negative effect on

Re: Question about Hash Indexes

Hi Mario, >From my understanding: 1.) The Hash Index was implemented unlike a traditional hash index, instead it is more of a memory saving index that uses hashing to not store keys. When the backing data structure needs to expand, it needs to rehash a lot of data and this can be detrimental at

Re: OQL Method Authorizer Blog

Great job Juan! Very informative and detailed read. On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 4:43 AM Nabarun Nag wrote: > Hi Geode Community, > > Please do visit the blog that Juan Ramos has put up on the OQL Method > Authorizer : > >

Re: Odg: ParallelGatewaySenderQueue implementation

Some additional info/context from the PR that is blocked by this issue: Although we have GFSH stop, it can still be used on an individual node. We just publish a caution, but it looks like we still allowed it due to having some users using it: CAUTION: Use caution with the stop gateway-sender

Re: RFC - Logging to Standard Out

+1 On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:21 PM Dan Smith wrote: > +1. Looks good! > > -Dan > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:56 PM Blake Bender wrote: > > > +1 - this is also a todo item for the native client, I think. NC has a > bug > > in logging which is in my top 3 for "most irritating," as well, which is

Re: [DISCUSS] abandon branch protection rules

tests in the future. On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 2:58 PM Jason Huynh wrote: > I feel the frustration at times, but I do also think the ci/pipelines are > improving, breaking less often. I'm ok with the way things are for the > moment > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 1:47 PM Owen

Re: [DISCUSS] abandon branch protection rules

I feel the frustration at times, but I do also think the ci/pipelines are improving, breaking less often. I'm ok with the way things are for the moment On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 1:47 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > In October we agreed to require at least 1 reviewer and 4 passing PR > checks before a

Re: Proposal to including GEODE-7593 in release/1.11.0

+1 On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:05 AM Owen Nichols wrote: > GEODE-7593 fixes a memory leak where indexes could retain references to > pdx values when eviction should have released that memory. > > This is not a new issue, but is critical because system stability is > threatened when eviction does

Re: Reviewer for GEODE-7534: Add example for query with bind params (documentation)

Hi Alberto, Looks like Dan and Dave have both reviewed it. I took a look and didn't see anything wrong so I squash merged it in. Thanks! -Jason On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:30 AM Alberto Gomez wrote: > Hi, > > I'd appreciate some extra reviewer (I already had one, thanks @Dave > Barnes) and if

Re: Odg: Odg: Odg: Odg: Lucene upgrade

gt; In tests it tried to execute a query after all members are rolled. > > BR, > Mario > > -- > *Šalje:* Jason Huynh > *Poslano:* 11. prosinca 2019. 23:08 > *Prima:* Mario Kevo > *Kopija:* geode > *Predmet:* Re: Odg: Odg: Odg: Lucene upgrade

Re: Request GEODE-7510/GEODE-7538 be cherry-picked into release 1.11

SHA of the commit? > > Thanks, > Mark > > > On Dec 11, 2019, at 11:02 AM, Jason Huynh wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > GEODE-7538 was highlighted as blocking the 1.11 release. This has now > been > > addressed and propose that this gets merged over to rele

Request GEODE-7510/GEODE-7538 be cherry-picked into release 1.11

Hello, GEODE-7538 was highlighted as blocking the 1.11 release. This has now been addressed and propose that this gets merged over to release 1.11. This issue solves a few things, most notably: GEODE-7510 shows inconsistency between secondaries and primaries. GEODE-7538 showed operations not

Re: Odg: Odg: Lucene upgrade

0x46] During normal > processing, unsuccessfully dispatched 1 events (batch #0)* > For VM0(server1) and VM2(server3) it has 14 entries, one is unsuccessfully > dispatched. > > I don't know why some events are successfully dispatched, some not. > Do you have any idea? > > BR, &

Re: IndexType deprecation question

on should have been limited to the HASH > type on the IndexType ENUM instead of deprecating the complete ENUM. > > Thanks, Joris. > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 12:05 PM Jason Huynh wrote: > > > Hi Joris, > > > > How are you creating the index? If using the Query

Re: Odg: Lucene upgrade

; Mario > > > > Šalje: Xiaojian Zhou > Poslano: 7. studenog 2019. 18:27 > Prima: geode > Predmet: Re: Lucene upgrade > > Oh, I misunderstood option-1 and option-2. What I vote is Jason's option-1. > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:19 AM Jaso

Re: IndexType deprecation question

Hi Joris, How are you creating the index? If using the QueryService java api, there should be createKeyIndex() and createIndex() methods. These methods should create the primary key index and the functional index. I am not sure if there is an alternative in gfsh... it might still be using the

Re: [DISCUSS/VOTE] Proposal to bring GEODE-7465 to release/1.11.0

+1 On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:34 AM Anilkumar Gingade wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:32 AM Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > > > This is no-brainer > > > > *+1* > > > > On 11/26/19 11:27 AM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > > I would like to propose bringing “GEODE-7465: Set eventProcessor to > null >

Re: [DISCUSS] is overriding a PR check ever justified?

the rest of the 90+ committers who don't care. > > Are you suggesting that every override now becomes a vote on the dev > list? Given that we don't have a real stance on whether we allow it or > not, maybe that is best UNTIL we hit a scenario where we cannot get > consensus on the o

Re: [DISCUSS] - Move gfsh into its own submodule

+1 I think we are now at +114 thanks to jinmei's 100 ;-) On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 1:50 PM Mark Bretl wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:55 PM Nabarun Nag wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:51 PM Charlie Black > wrote: > > > > > this proposal == awesome sauce > > > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] is overriding a PR check ever justified?

@Udo - I think Naba was asking why the original commit that broke the pipeline wasn't detected. I think instead of a vote email, an email alerting the dev list that an override needs to take place is still good to have. If nothing else, to identify areas that we might be able to improve with

Re: Odg: gateway sender queue

+1 to Dan's suggestion On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 9:52 AM Dan Smith wrote: > I'm ok with adding a --cleanQueue option. > > However, I don't think it should default to be true, since that would be > changing the behavior of the existing command. It should default to false. > > -Dan > > On Thu, Nov

Re: Quick turnaround needed, feedback on this DRAFT Nov board report

+1 On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:06 AM Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > +1 > > Haven't double checked the numbers, but the rest LGTM > > On 11/13/19 9:49 AM, Karen Miller wrote: > > Draft board report for November 2019. Submitting in 2 hours! Quick > > feedback, please! > > > > ## Description: > > The

Re: Propose adding GEODE-7400 fix to 1.11 release

+1 On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:41 AM Kirk Lund wrote: > I propose merging the fix for GEODE-7400 (merged to develop today) to the > 1.11 release branch. > > My fix for GEODE-7330 (merged to develop in late October) introduced > GEODE-7400 which is the potential for RejectedExecutionException to

Re: [DISCUSS] - Upgrading from Spring 4 to Spring 5

+1 On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 1:28 PM Dan Smith wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 12:49 PM Jens Deppe wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:39 PM Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > > > > > Sorry, > > > > > > To clarify... When we change the Spring version we would be looking at > > > looking

Re: Lucene upgrade

> on, silence or reduce their business throughput when > doing rolling upgrade. I wonder if it's a reasonable assumption. > > Overall, after compared all the 3 options, I still think option-2 is the > best bet. > > Regards > Gester > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019

Re: Lucene upgrade

, completely. In either case, I'll support whoever implements the changes :-P On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 2:53 PM Jacob Barrett wrote: > > > > On Nov 6, 2019, at 2:16 PM, Jason Huynh wrote: > > > > Jake, -from my understanding, the implementation details of geode-lucene &g

Re: Lucene upgrade

eriod of time have an > > impact? > > > > Not an ideal solution but it’s something. > > > > In my previous life we just deleted the indexes and rebuilt them on > > upgrade but that was specific to our application. > > > > -Jake > > > >

Re: Lucene upgrade

Hi Mario, I think there are a few ways to accomplish what Dan was suggesting...Dan or other's, please chime in with more options/solutions. 1.) We add some product code/lucene listener to detect whether we have old versions of geode and if so, do not write to lucene on the newly updated node

Re: IncrementalBackupDistributedTest.testMissingMemberInBaseline hangs

I'm working on a fix and have a PR up for another hang in the same test that I think fixes this issue. https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4255 On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 10:47 AM Kirk Lund wrote: > IncrementalBackupDistributedTest.testMissingMemberInBaseline is hanging > intermittently in the

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

Greetings, We have a pull request (https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4250) that is running into a problem with stressNewTest. Mostly the tests that are being run are RollingUpgrade tests that take quite a bit of time to run the full suite. Because these tests are added/modified, the

Re: [DISCUSS] is overriding a PR check ever justified?

If we are going to allow overrides, then maybe what Owen is describing should occur. Make a request on the dev list and explain the reasoning. I don't think this has been done and a few have already been overridden. Also who has the capability to override and knows how. How is that determined?

Re: [DISCUSS] Tweak to branch protection rules

+1, thanks Dan! On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:07 AM Aaron Lindsey wrote: > +1 > > - Aaron > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 8:02 AM Ju@N wrote: > > > Perfect Naba, thanks for answering this. > > My vote is +1 then. > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 2:37 PM Nabarun Nag wrote: > > > > > The check box

Re: SSL Alias Support for JMX Connections

+1 On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:12 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > Hi Juan and Sai, thank you for bringing your concern. > > Geode's release process dictates a time-based schedule < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+Schedule> to > cut release branches. The release/1.10.0 < >

Re: [PROPOSAL]: Improve OQL Method Invocation Security

Are security manager policies modifiable on the fly? Just wondering if someone decides they want to disallow or allow something, will they need to restart their vms/geode node? I think Dan pointed this out earlier in the thread, but just wanted to have us consider the original cve that led to

Re: [PROPOSAL]: Improve OQL Method Invocation Security

+1 I have some concerns about all of the different ways we configure geode to be secure, but that's a different issue ;-) Overall, very thorough proposal Juan! On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:22 PM Dan Smith wrote: > +1 > > This proposal looks good to me! > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM Udo

Re: GEODE-6630 fix for release 1.9.0

+1 On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:48 PM Dan Smith wrote: > +1 - this looks like a good fix to get in if it was introduced in 1.9.0. > > -Dan > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:28 PM Eric Shu wrote: > > > I'd like to include the fix for the NPE. > > It is new in 1.9. > > > > Regards, > > Eric > > >

Re: defunct branches

Hi Bruce, I am unable to see the same branches on geode repo. I do see these branches on my personal fork but that's because I haven't updated my own personal fork in some time... Is there a chance that your origin is pointing to your personal fork and not the Apache Geode Repo? I am also

Re: 1.9 release date

To Alexander's point, I'm use the latest geode snapshot and am seeing an issue that looks similar to (if not the same as) GEODE-3780 (but this one is closed). I'd like to explore this a bit more and decide if that should be reopened but I am not sure if it's not an issue important enough to wait

Re: Release branch for Apache Geode 1.9.0 has been cut

Ok GEODE-6404 is merged into release/1.9.0 branch commit 40b3d9c690257d3e0e9bccfa1677c8adcbdce096 (*HEAD -> **release/1.9.0*, *origin/release/1.9.0*) Author: Jason Huynh Date: Mon Feb 25 18:31:21 2019 + GEODE-6404: work around possible sync issue with computeIfAbsent (#3

Re: Release branch for Apache Geode 1.9.0 has been cut

gt; On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:54 AM Jason Huynh wrote: > > > Hi Sai, > > > > Fix for GEODE-6404 is now on develop > > (2be6375a775b6b0d00d0c41a1e2a3bf4b8745a46) > > Would you be able to pull it into the 1.9 branch or would you like me > to? > > > >

Re: Release branch for Apache Geode 1.9.0 has been cut

ing on it? > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 9:08 AM Jason Huynh wrote: > > > Oh ok I thought I read that voting was going to start soon, so I thought > > I'd raise a concern about the tickets not being fixed yet. > > > > I meant this ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GE

Re: Release branch for Apache Geode 1.9.0 has been cut

ed by new work being merged to develop. > > Do you mean GEODE-6369? > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:50 PM Jason Huynh wrote: > > > Correction, GEODE-6359 and GEODE-6404. > > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:49 PM Jason Huynh wrote: > > > > > I still haven'

Re: Geode 1.9 Release Manager

DE-6391, which is to fix a NPE while propagating región > > destroy and invalidate region messages. > > > > Regards > > Naba > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:06 AM Jason Huynh wrote: > > > >> I think Kirk's topic and any solution r

Re: Geode 1.9 Release Manager

I think Kirk's topic and any solution related to stats (int to long) should be resolved before cutting the branch? On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:48 PM Alexander Murmann wrote: > If there are no other takers, I can act as release manager for 1.9 and will > cut a release branch this week. > > > On

Re: Adding index for Like operartor

== should in theory be faster. The compiled like eventually boils down to a >= query but it takes a few steps to get there. If I understand correctly. the second approach would be indexed on a string field and the query would look similar to "select * from /region where stringField = 'ABC'" If

Re: Adding index for Like operartor

Key indexes tell the query engine that the field is the same as the key that was used to put into the underlying region. So let's say your field is "ID". Creating a key index tells the query engine that a "select * from /region theRegion where ID = 1" is the same as doing : theRegion.get(1). In

Re: Release branch for Apache Geode 1.8.0 has been cut

I'd like to cherry pick the following two commits to release/1.8. https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6d9e026feb584309dff269e593417082a71434fc https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/d22e83e167f261e933b79b2619367d2e1b788db6 Reason: There was a previous commit that modified the way

Re: [DISCUSS] Cutting 1.8 release branch

I also think that the PR https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2818, or something that fixes this race, should make it into the release On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 8:59 AM Jason Huynh wrote: > I just merged a change last night for GEODE-5884 that I think should make > it into the release. >

Re: [DISCUSS] Cutting 1.8 release branch

I just merged a change last night for GEODE-5884 that I think should make it into the release. On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:33 AM Anthony Baker wrote: > I’m working on a review of LICENSE and NOTICE. Looks like a few things > slipped in that need to be declared. > > Anthony > > > > On Nov 2,

Re: Queries on key fields

Hello Siby, I think we should keep this conversation based on Geode if possible. I think GemFire has their own support channels that you might be able to contact for help specific to GemFire... As for the commit conflicts, I assume you are using transactions? Also, I am not aware of a specific

Re: PuAll vs List

I think this question is too abstract to have a great answer and also depends on if you want the processing to occur on the client or server or whether your client can hold entire lists of values... The downside to option 1 is that you will need to retrieve the entire list of objects, depending

Re: Queries on key fields

Pdx and indexing are different altogether. Pdx affects the serialization of the object. Indexing affects querying speed. Together, they should improve the entire query speed because querying can cause deserializations. With Pdx it should speed up look ups by not causing full deserialization

Re: Queries on key fields

The index and pdx serialization are orthogonal. You will be able to use both together On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:50 AM siby_sekar wrote: > Thank you Jason that was really helpful. > > Can we use index and PDXSerialization together on a field. Here in this > case > we will be searching by

Re: Queries on key fields

I think if you embed the sessionId into your value object and create an index, that should perform better. I am assuming if you embed the sesionId that you would then be doing queries more similar to sessionId = X or sessionId like sessionId%. Being able to use the index will prevent the query

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.7.0 RC1

ait until the investigation is completed, as this can be a > potential -1 to the RC. > > Regards > Nabarun Nag > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jason Huynh wrote: > > > I'm currently looking into an issue in WAN when running this rc. Not > sure > > if it's a s

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.7.0 RC1

I'm currently looking into an issue in WAN when running this rc. Not sure if it's a showstopper and I can't actually describe what the problem is, but a sample application I have is not behaving the same as before, there may be a data inconsistency... if it's not too late, would you be able to

Re: [Proposal]: behavior change when region doesn't exist in cluster configuration

*correction to my last email, I was using java api and not cache.xml On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 3:40 PM Jason Huynh <jhu...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Hi Jinmei and Naba, > > I don't think you can define two regions with the same name and different > types. We would throw an Ill

Re: [Proposal]: behavior change when region doesn't exist in cluster configuration

Hi Jinmei and Naba, I don't think you can define two regions with the same name and different types. We would throw an IllegalStateException for the node that tried to create the region second. At least that was the behavior I was seeing when I tried to create a replicate region and a

Re: Index on Region

Hi Jinmei, I am not sure whether these elements were deprecated or not. I know that they were at one time valid and a user could specify the following in their app at one point: I believe the "new" way to do this would be: How would deprecation for this work? Would your roll a new

Re: [PROPOSAL] use default value for validate-serializable-objects in dunit

+1 agreement with Kirk and Sean. Any non default configuration should probably have it's own set of tests. I can understand some exploratory work where someone might want to run the whole precheckin with a non default value to help identify areas that they may have missed or are unexpectedly

Re: [Proposal] Thread monitoring mechanism

I am assuming this would be for all thread/thread pools and not specific to Function threads. I wonder what the impact would be for put/get operations or are we going to target specific operations. On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:04 AM Gregory Vortman wrote: > Hello

Re: [DISCUSS] changes to registerInterest API

va.util.Collection as a key over > >> implementing a CompositeKey type. > >> > >> As such, anything we can do to discourage users from using Collection > types > >> as a key, I think is a good thing. > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:35 PM, J

Re: Geode unit tests 'develop/DistributedTest' took too long to execute

I logged a ticket for this hang: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-4650 From what I can tell, it looks like some sort of race condition where the DLockService is stuck trying to clearGrantor. On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:20 PM wrote: > Pipeline results can be

Re: [PROPOSAL] Add mod and arithmetic functionality to OQL

Based on the oql.g file I think it would but I can add some tests to be sure On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:04 PM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Will the OQL engine obey operator precedence rules? > > Anthony > > > > On Feb 6, 2018, at 10:22 AM, Jason Huyn

[PROPOSAL] Add mod and arithmetic functionality to OQL

This is a proposal to add the ability to execute arithmetic operations on numeric fields in an OQL query. The corresponding jira ticket is: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-4327 The operation symbols that will be added are mod, %, +, -, /, *. These will correspond to modulo, modulo,

Re: Next release: 1.4.0

t; > > The Concourse pipeline seems much more reliable at this point and the > > > pipelines should be providing equivalent test coverage. Given that, are > > > there any reasons to not deprecate Jenkins? > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Jaso

Re: Next release: 1.4.0

Hi Swapnil, GEODE-4140 was just marked for 1.4. I think part of GEODE-4140 should be fixed because the process.ClusterConfigurationNotAvailableException should probably be reinstated. If others don't think it's needed then feel free to remove the fix tag. -Jason On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 4:38 PM

Apache geode nightly failures

Has anyone been getting emails for the nightly builds and failures (My last build email was 1027 and I think the latest is 1030)? It looks like the last few have been a mess with Out of Memory exceptions and I think they were all ran on H34. Should that machine be black listed? If so, would

Re: [DISCUSS] changes to registerInterest API

is perfect fine to have a "Composite" Key, but then define a > > CompositeKey class type with properly implemented equals(:Object) and > > hashCode():int methods. > > > > For the most part, Keys should really only ever be simple Scalar values > > (e.g. Long

Re: [DISCUSS] changes to registerInterest API

s. > > For ALL_KEYS, what about an API that doesn't require a token or all keys: > > public void registerInterestForAllKeys(); > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Jason Huynh <jhu...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > Thanks John for the clarification! > > > > On

Re: [DISCUSS] FunctionAdapter incompatible serialVersionUID

functionAdapter. This should only affect users that extend FunctionAdapter and execute functions by serializing them to the server from the client. If they execute by id it should not run into this problem... On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:20 PM Jason Huynh <jhu...@pivotal.io> wrote: >

Re: [DISCUSS] FunctionAdapter incompatible serialVersionUID

oving a long-deprecated class from the Geode side. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Bruce Schuchardt < > > > > bschucha...@pivotal.io> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> How about just gettin

[DISCUSS] FunctionAdapter incompatible serialVersionUID

This is a discussion for the fix to GEODE-4008: InvalidClassException when deserializing FunctionAdapter from pre Geode clients There was a change to deprecate FunctionAdapter in Geode (before 1.0), and this also removed the method signatures in the class. This caused Java to generate a new

Re: [DISCUSS] changes to registerInterest API

= ... > > region.registerInterest(keys); *// calls the > Region.registerInterest(:Iterable) method.* > > Alternatively, this would also be allowed... > > *Set* keys = ... > > region.registerInterest(keys); > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Jason Huy

Re: [DISCUSS] changes to registerInterest API

pes.*"), regarding var args, does not even make sense. Technically, > > List is no different. Java's type erasure essentially equates var > args > > too "Object..." (or Object[]) and the List to List (or a List of > > Objects, > > essentially lik

Re: [DISCUSS] changes to registerInterest API

gt; > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Anilkumar Gingade < > aging...@pivotal.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 Deprecating ALL_KEYS option; I believe this is added before we > > > supported > > > > regex support. > &

[DISCUSS] changes to registerInterest API

For GEODE-3813 : Region registerInterest API usage of type parameters is broken The current API to registerInterest allows a special string token “ALL_KEYS” to be passed in as the parameter to

Re: [Discussion] SQL+Streaming/JDBC as one of the unified interfaces

Hi Christian, I don't know much about Calcite and haven't had a chance to try out your adapter yet but it sounds like a neat idea. Will your talk be recorded and available after the Summit? Also for question 1. Would you be interested to have the adapter as part of Geode's code ecosystem? Do

Re: Permissions to edit the wiki

Thanks! On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:08 PM Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > You should have permissions now. > > -Dan > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Jason Huynh <jasonhu...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I would like to be

Permissions to edit the wiki

Hi, I would like to be able to edit the wiki for Geode and I don't think I have the correct permissions at this time. Would someone be able to give me the permissions to do so? My username in confluence is huynhja. Thanks, -Jason

Re: Rebase and squash before merging PRs

I think we can also use "squash and merge" if wanting to squash commits before merging. This would allow you not to have to force push every time. On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:15 PM Jinmei Liao wrote: > On the PR UI page, you can do that by pull down the the menu when you are >

[DISCUSS] Removal of "Submit an Issue" from Geode webpage

I'd like to remove the "Submit an Issue" button/script attached to the site. We occasionally get JIRA tickets that come through the Apache Geode website through the "Submit an Issue" Button However these tickets are being created through a script, and this sets Gregory Chase as the reporter and

  1   2   3   >