/jira/browse/IGNITE-1898
> and
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1899
>
> Cheers
> Andrey
>
> > From: dsetrak...@apache.org
> > Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:53:52 -0800
> > Subject: Re: Custom ThreadFactory
> > To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> >
>
> >
> > Cheers
> > Andrey
> >
> > > From: dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:53:52 -0800
> > > Subject: Re: Custom ThreadFactory
> > > To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:26 AM,
, I think its best to summarize the design thoughts in a ticket. Then
someone from the community will pick it up.
>
> Regards
> Andrey
>
> > Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:11:38 +0300
> > Subject: Re: Custom ThreadFactory
> > From: voze...@gridgain.com
> > To: dev@ignit
There you go:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1898
and
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1899
Cheers
Andrey
> From: dsetrak...@apache.org
> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:53:52 -0800
> Subject: Re: Custom ThreadFactory
> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
>
> On
I would avoid running any external payloads in public pool because it could
unpredictably affect Ignite internals. "Public" doesn't mean "opened for
everyone" here.
On the other hand, I abosuletly agree that removing possibility to
configure custom pools was not very good idea. I do not see any
an invalid (unexpected, to put it
mildly) instance of IgniteKernal is looked up. I don't know how serious
it is, but it is probably a bug.
Regards
Andrey
> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:11:38 +0300
> Subject: Re: Custom ThreadFactory
> From: voze...@gridgain.com
> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
