Folks,
Thanks for your feedback.
I've created a JIRA issue on this change:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12622
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:43 PM Denis Magda wrote:
> +1 from my end. It doesn't sound like a big deal if Ignite users need to
> define separate groups for atomic and
Ivan Rakov created IGNITE-12622:
---
Summary: Forbid mixed cache groups with both atomic and
transactional caches
Key: IGNITE-12622
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12622
Project: Ignite
Let's run a vote if that's the only option to come to a consensus. It will
be best if either Alex Goncharuk, Andrey Gura or Nikolay Izhikov creates a
discussion thread stating the problem and possible choices. Folks, who
would like to take over?
Generally, the vote should help us to decide how to
That's the best solution for this scenario. Should we readjust the already
created ticket [1] suggesting to implement the changes of Alex Scherbakov
instead?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12614
-
Denis
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:54 PM Alexei Scherbakov <
+1 from my end. It doesn't sound like a big deal if Ignite users need to
define separate groups for atomic and transactional caches.
-
Denis
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:28 AM Ivan Rakov wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> Apparently it's possible in Ignite to configure a cache group with both
> ATOMIC and
> Andrey, then I suggest firstly check if old annotations are present, and if
> not - are there any new annotations. Do you agree?
I'm afraid I don't understand. Old annotations are present and new
annotations don't exist yet :)
> And should I also replace usage of old annotations or leave it as
Vyacheslav Koptilin created IGNITE-12621:
Summary: Node leave may cause NullPointerException during IO
message processing if security is enabled
Key: IGNITE-12621
URL:
Andrey, then I suggest firstly check if old annotations are present, and if
not - are there any new annotations. Do you agree?
And should I also replace usage of old annotations or leave it as it is?
вт, 4 февр. 2020 г. в 16:57, Andrey Gura :
> Lev,
>
> > I'm confused about your first comment.
Hello, Igniters.
I propose to create management API to dance user provided tasks and queries.
Below my proposal in the IEP [1] form.
Please, share your feedback.
Motivation:
Ignite provides many API to deploy and execute user-provided code on the
server nodes
inside the sam JVM as
The next bit I found out is that links like
"https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/current/api/"
are needed to have working links to external classes in javadocs (e.g.
Hadoop ones). Unfortunately, we are not consistent with external
links. E.g. references to JCache classes are rendered as plain text in
MXBeanParametersNames and MXBeanParametersDescriptions could be marked
as deprecated if MXBeanParameter will be added.
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 5:12 PM Ivan Pavlukhin wrote:
>
> Should we mark old annotations deprecated?
>
> вт, 4 февр. 2020 г. в 16:57, Andrey Gura :
> >
> > Lev,
> >
> > > I'm
Should we mark old annotations deprecated?
вт, 4 февр. 2020 г. в 16:57, Andrey Gura :
>
> Lev,
>
> > I'm confused about your first comment. Does it mean, that the only thing I
> can do is to create new annotation?
>
> Yes, it does. But in this case you can mark old annotations as
> deprecated
Igor Seliverstov created IGNITE-12620:
-
Summary: Calcite integration. Index Nested Loop Join/Hash Join
Key: IGNITE-12620
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12620
Project: Ignite
Lev,
> I'm confused about your first comment. Does it mean, that the only thing I
can do is to create new annotation?
Yes, it does. But in this case you can mark old annotations as
deprecated because new annotations are real alternative.
> So, I can't change implementation of *getDescription /
Ivan,
Thanks. I have answered.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 15:03, Ivan Pavlukhin wrote:
> Sergey,
>
> Thank you for your efforts! I left some comments in the ticket [1].
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12582
>
> сб, 1 февр. 2020 г. в 18:35, Sergey Chernolyas <
>
Ivan Pavlukhin created IGNITE-12619:
---
Summary: Extend test coverage of [IGNITE-11056] SQL: Create a view
with list of existing indexes
Key: IGNITE-12619
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12619
Thanks for answer, Andrey.
I'm confused about your first comment. Does it mean, that the only thing I
can do is to create new annotation?
Because, as you said, I must leave unchanged all related to old annotations
functionality.
So, I can't change implementation of *getDescription /
Alexey,
Thank you for the hint. Actually my bet was the same. But currently I
have no understanding how
"https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/current/api/" tag is used
and is it used at all.
вт, 4 февр. 2020 г. в 15:01, Alexey Goncharuk :
>
> Ivan,
>
> My guess would be that the link was included for
Sergey,
Thank you for your efforts! I left some comments in the ticket [1].
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12582
сб, 1 февр. 2020 г. в 18:35, Sergey Chernolyas :
>
> Hi Ivan!
>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/7347 . It is link to PR. Criticism
> is welcome :-)
>
> On
Ivan,
My guess would be that the link was included for the Hadoop Accelerator
which we all agreed to remove [1]. I think it is safe to remove it from
pom.xml completely.
[1]
+1 to avoid mixed tx-atomic cache groups.
On the other side, doing atomic ops inside a tx have no relation to
described reasons and is acceptable for me.
вт, 4 февр. 2020 г. в 14:40, Alexey Goncharuk :
> I support this change. While this has no much difference on the storage
> level, the
Hello,
I absolutely agree with the proposed restriction. Additionally, this fact
should be clearly stated on the documentation page related to cache groups
https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/cache-groups
Thanks,
S.
вт, 4 февр. 2020 г. в 14:40, Alexey Goncharuk :
> I support this change. While
I support this change. While this has no much difference on the storage
level, the protocols are indeed are very different and thus should be
separated.
вт, 4 февр. 2020 г. в 14:36, Anton Vinogradov :
> Seems, we already started the separation by atomic operations restriction
> inside the
Anton,
Indeed, that's +1 point for forbidding mixed configurations.
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:36 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> Seems, we already started the separation by atomic operations restriction
> inside the transactions [1].
> See no reason to allow mixes in this case.
>
> [1]
Seems, we already started the separation by atomic operations restriction
inside the transactions [1].
See no reason to allow mixes in this case.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2313
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:28 PM Ivan Rakov wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> Apparently it's possible in
I continued my experiments with javadocs and a next hurdle was an
external link to Hadoop documentation
https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/current/api/ . Javadoc build job scans
logs for javadoc-specific warnings and it founds any it fails build.
But there were many failures in the past in a form:
Hi, Lev!
I think you understand task correctly.
A couple of comments:
- Existing annotations and related functionality must not be deleted
because it is part of public API and we committed to have stable API
between major releases.
- I would suggest introduce @MXBeanParameter annotation instead
Igniters,
Apparently it's possible in Ignite to configure a cache group with both
ATOMIC and TRANSACTIONAL caches.
Proof: IgniteCacheGroupsTest#testContinuousQueriesMultipleGroups* tests.
In my opinion, it would be better to remove such possibility from the
product. There are several reasons:
1)
Folks,
Let's start a vote?
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 15:05, Andrey Gura wrote:
>
> Just post here article from Oracle documentation "How and When To
> Deprecate APIs" [1].
>
> [1]
> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/javadoc/deprecation/deprecation.html
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020
Artem, I've answered to your question in apache slack.
Better to discuss implementation details in ticket comments.
пт, 31 янв. 2020 г. в 21:02, Denis Magda :
> Alex Scherbakof, as the one who created the ticket, could you please help
> Artem and share more details?
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Fri,
30 matches
Mail list logo
