Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

Thanks for your explanation. 2017-02-10 18:18 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn : > You can close it. > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur > wrote: > > > I meant what I need to do with opened PR? > > I need to close it or to leave it open for

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

You can close it. On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur wrote: > I meant what I need to do with opened PR? > I need to close it or to leave it open for future merge? > > 2017-02-10 17:42 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn : > > > The ticket is

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

I meant what I need to do with opened PR? I need to close it or to leave it open for future merge? 2017-02-10 17:42 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn : > The ticket is targeted for 2.0 because this change may affect existing > code. > 1.9 is planned in the near future, and minor

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

The ticket is targeted for 2.0 because this change may affect existing code. 1.9 is planned in the near future, and minor versions should not break existing code. Pavel On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur wrote: > Pavel, thanks. > > What about PR to

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

Pavel, thanks. What about PR to master-branch? 2017-02-10 16:55 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn : > Merged to ignite-2.0. > > Thank you for the contribution, Vyacheslav! > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > > > + Vladimir Ozerov > > > > It

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

Merged to ignite-2.0. Thank you for the contribution, Vyacheslav! On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Denis Magda wrote: > + Vladimir Ozerov > > It would be better if Vladimir Ozerov does the final review considering > all the changes in .NET, C++ and Java. > > Vladimir, could

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

+ Vladimir Ozerov It would be better if Vladimir Ozerov does the final review considering all the changes in .NET, C++ and Java. Vladimir, could you do that? — Denis > On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:04 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur wrote: > > +Denis > > >>Ok, so we agree on .NET and

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

+Denis >>Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be reviewed. >>Denis, can you have a look? 2017-02-07 15:27 GMT+03:00 Pavel Tupitsyn : > Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be reviewed. > > Denis, can you have a look? > > Pavel

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

Ok, so we agree on .NET and C++ parts, only Java part is to be reviewed. Denis, can you have a look? Pavel On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Igor Sapego wrote: > Looks good to me. > > Best Regards, > Igor > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

Looks good to me. Best Regards, Igor On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur wrote: > Ok, thanks for explanations. > > What about this task? > > 2017-02-07 13:57 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego : > >> But that's Ok. Since we use int8_t for bytes in

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

Ok, thanks for explanations. What about this task? 2017-02-07 13:57 GMT+03:00 Igor Sapego : > But that's Ok. Since we use int8_t for bytes in C++ as well I guess > your -0x80 may have more sense than 0x80. > > Best Regards, > Igor > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Igor

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

But that's Ok. Since we use int8_t for bytes in C++ as well I guess your -0x80 may have more sense than 0x80. Best Regards, Igor On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Igor Sapego wrote: > I was just curious. > > In C++ both constants 0x80 and -0x80 are of type 'int' and have

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

I was just curious. In C++ both constants 0x80 and -0x80 are of type 'int' and have the same lower byte, so they give the same result. Though first number is actually 0x0080 when the second one is 0xFF80. So it's just made a minus sign look a little redundant and pointless to me in C++

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

Byte.MIN_VALUE = -128 = -0x80 Byte.MAX_VALUE = 127 = 0x7F It is just more evident for me. Maybe, I just have the Java programming style. In Java: byte a = 100 | -0x80; // compiled byte b = 100 | 0x80; // doesn't compile, explicit type casting is neccessary (byte)(100 | 0x80)

Re: IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

Vyacheslav, Overall looks good. But why do you use -0x80 instead of 0x80? Best Regards, Igor On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Vyacheslav Daradur wrote: > Igor, > > I didn't change the CPP code before approval approach. > I shall write directly, sorry. > > But I made CPP

IGNITE-3196 - ready for review

Hello. I fixed it. Please, review. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3196 - Marshaling works wrong for the BigDecimals that have negative scale