Re: Igfs PURGE events: do we need them?

Let me ask a different question: what's the point of having the concept of TRASH? Here's an example why I think the 'soft' delete would only complicate thing. Suppose IGFS is sitting on top of HDFS and both have 'Trash' enabled. Now, the file is getting soft-deleted from IGFS and is moved to

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

Hi Brane, I hadn't joined the project back then, so I don't know the history, but my guess is that the loss of traceability might have occurred as a result of importing the code from an external repository. I don't see why they could be attributed to branch deletion – probably I'm not feeling

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

On 23.11.2015 04:13, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 02:16PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: >> Cos, >> >> I believe this is the ticket: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-10798 >> >> This policy does seem myopic, would be great if Ignite could get an >> exemption. >

Re: IGFS: properties to use for implicit mkdirs

Hi, Konstantin, >Perhaps more logical would be to do what Unix does: if permissions aren't explicitly set during creation, those should be inherited from the parent. as per my observations on Linux, the implicitly created directories take default permissions 0777 & ~umask but not inherit them

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Cool! I closed IGNITE-1282. > > Vladimir, let’s make sure that all closed branches are recorded here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Git+branches+to+delete Thanks! > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at

Re: Ignite-1.5 Release

Guys, I finalized and pushed branch ignite-1753-1282 with updated CacheJdbcPojoStore that use new classes instead of deprected CacheTypeMetadata. See IGNITE-1753 Rework CacheJdbcPojoStore to new API https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1753 I will also update documentation on readme.io

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-1981) Can't save newly created IGFS

Pavel Konstantinov created IGNITE-1981: -- Summary: Can't save newly created IGFS Key: IGNITE-1981 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1981 Project: Ignite Issue Type:

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-1983) .Net: Continuous query tests fail

Pavel Tupitsyn created IGNITE-1983: --- Summary: .Net: Continuous query tests fail Key: IGNITE-1983 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1983 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Bug

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-1982) CacheRebalanceMode is imported without package name

Pavel Konstantinov created IGNITE-1982: -- Summary: CacheRebalanceMode is imported without package name Key: IGNITE-1982 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1982 Project: Ignite

Re: Igfs PURGE events: do we need them?

Hi, Dmitriy, this is not difficult to support the events properly, we just need to store last path of each file or make sure it is guaranteed to be calculatable when the file is already in TRASH (this is needed because each PURGE event must contain the path of the file that is purged). On Fri,

Hello!

Hi everyone!! My name is Carlos. I work as a Software Engineer and after having a read through the Apache Ignite project and docs and given that I'm very keen on actively contributing to an Open Source Project I want to try to join this community, collaborate, learn and have fun!! Regards

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

On 23.11.2015 20:41, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 09:08AM, Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 23.11.2015 04:13, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 02:16PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: Cos, I believe this is the ticket:

Re: Explicit lock inside a transaction

I do not think it should be analogous to "get". Get creates implicit lock which is released when transaction ends. Lock is obtained explicitly and should be released explicitly as well. On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > It is currently not

Explicit lock inside a transaction

Igniters, Do we allow to acquire explicit locks (cache.lock(..) method) within an explicit transaction? Currently it doesn't work which makes me think that it's an invalid usage, but it fails with NPE [1]. Do we need to fix it or just provide proper message? [1]

Re: Igfs PURGE events: do we need them?

Cos, The main reason soft delete was added is performance. Without soft-delete, the delete operation would have to wait until a file is fully deleted from a folder, which may take time. As far as secondary FS handling it, IGFS does not require a secondary FS, so we should account for cases when

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-1988) NPE when explicit lock is acquired within a transaction

Valentin Kulichenko created IGNITE-1988: --- Summary: NPE when explicit lock is acquired within a transaction Key: IGNITE-1988 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1988 Project: Ignite

Re: Explicit lock inside a transaction

It is currently not supported, but it should not throw an NPE. To be honest, I am not sure why we don’t support it. IMHO, it should be analogous to a get() call which returns no value. Can anyone shed some light on this? D. On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <

Re: Check Ignite code base with Findbugs.

Igniters, I've installed FindBugs plugin for Idea and run it on ignite-core module. Well it found a lot... 1331 items... Some of them are false-positive of course, but this plugin has quite handy grouping and we could only check important groups like "Multithreading". Also FindBugs found a

Re: Hello!

Hi Carlos, Welcome to the Ignite community! Please properly subscribe to the dev list (this way I will not have to manually approve your emails). All you need to do is send an email to “ dev-subscr...@ignite.apache.org” and follow simple instructions in the reply. You should get familiar with

[GitHub] ignite pull request: IGNITE-1983 .Net: Continuous query tests fail

GitHub user ptupitsyn opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/255 IGNITE-1983 .Net: Continuous query tests fail You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/ptupitsyn/ignite ignite-1983-2 Alternatively

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-1987) Make binary marshaller default

Alexey Goncharuk created IGNITE-1987: Summary: Make binary marshaller default Key: IGNITE-1987 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1987 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Bug

[GitHub] ignite pull request: IGNITE-1986: C++ examples VS project file fix...

GitHub user isapego opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/256 IGNITE-1986: C++ examples VS project file fixed. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/isapego/ignite ignite-1986 Alternatively you

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-1986) cpp: couldn't build cpp ignite-examples due to wrong parameters values in the project file

Vasilisa Sidorova created IGNITE-1986: -- Summary: cpp: couldn't build cpp ignite-examples due to wrong parameters values in the project file Key: IGNITE-1986 URL:

Re: Branch deletion prohibited

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:02PM, Raul Kripalani wrote: > Hi Brane, > > I hadn't joined the project back then, so I don't know the history, but my > guess is that the loss of traceability might have occurred as a result of > importing the code from an external repository. I don't see why they