On May 4, 2021, at 12:33 PM, Charlie Black
mailto:cbl...@vmware.com>> wrote:
Another viewpoint is this is a library and that library can be used by older
applications. So being cutting edge on the complier on the library does not
increase the adoption of Geode.
The public API can’t change
Retaining local pox types in the client after a disconnect will cause problems
as you observed. Take a look at the “ON_DISCONNECT_CLEAR_PDXTYPEIDS” property
to improve this.
Anthony
> On May 4, 2021, at 4:36 AM, Mario Salazar de Torres
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> While debugging some
Hi,
I am forwarding this discussion to the user list, as I also agree, they should
also give their view on this.
Additionally, I've been doing some tests and one downside is that the following
classes/functions have been removed in C++17:
* std::unary_function and binary_function have
Another viewpoint is this is a library and that library can be used by older
applications. So being cutting edge on the complier on the library does not
increase the adoption of Geode.
Agree with Alberto that users mailing lists should be consulted.
Charlie
From: Alberto Gomez
Date:
Hi,
Here come my two cents.
To me, upgrading to C++17 is a no brainer given that C++11 is quite old and
C++17 has lots of new features, performance improvements and bug fixes.
The only thing that could prevent us from doing so is having lots of users that
are running the native client in a
Hi everyone,
Sorry for the previous email, I did send it before finishing it by mistake.
Currently Geode Native uses C++11 standard. It has been quite some time since
the standard was released and as of today the latest standard is C++20.
As part of another discussion, some users in the
Hi everyone,
Currently Geode Native uses C++11 standard. It has been quite some time since
the standard was released and as of today the latest standard is C++20.
As part of another discussion, some users in the community were wondering if
it's the time to switch to C++17 in the Geode Native
> On May 4, 2021, at 7:59 AM, Mario Salazar de Torres
> wrote:
>
> Sure, gladly . Let me put up the info and I will open the discussion.
> And sorry for polluting this topic regarding Style and Formatting :S
No apologies! I just think this topic has a much bigger scope than documenting
our
Sure, gladly . Let me put up the info and I will open the discussion.
And sorry for polluting this topic regarding Style and Formatting :S
Thanks,
Mario.
From: Jacob Barrett
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 4:42 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION:
Mario,
Let’s start a separate discussion for going to C++17 on a minor release. Can
you lay out the pros and cons to kick it off?
> On May 4, 2021, at 7:31 AM, Mario Salazar de Torres
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Regarding Blake's comment on moving towards C++17 I completely agree.
> I
Hi everyone,
Regarding Blake's comment on moving towards C++17 I completely agree.
I think almost every compiler supports it now and given the latest changes on
WoW regarding ABI,
even if there were some ABI break (which is not the case from C++11 to C++17),
everything should be fine.
I'd
Hi everyone,
While debugging some coredumps in the native client related to PdxTypeRegistry
cleanup, I tried to reproduce the scenario with the Java client API to see how
it was handled.
Thing is I've noticed that this scenario in the Java client might lead to Geode
storing a corrupted entry,
12 matches
Mail list logo
