Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2733
---
Github user devozerov closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2633
---
GitHub user devozerov opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2760
IGNITE-6331
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-6331-more
Alternatively you can review and apply t
Folks,
Let me summarize current naming ideas one more time:
1) [StorageConfiguration - StorageRegionConfiguration]
2) [DurableMemoryConfiguration - DataRegionConfiguration]
3) [DurableMemoryConfiguration - DurableMemoryRegionConfiguration] - out of
question, as "durable memory region" is too misl
OK, if we must change the current behavior, let's discuss the new design.
My comments/questions are below...
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Vladimir Ozerov
wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Sorry for late reply. I had a chat with several Ignite veterans today. We
> tried to design transactional SQL for Ign
Yes, have a minimum set at Java 8 (ML contributors would greatly appreciate
that...).
--
Nikita Ivanov
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Denis Magda wrote:
> You meant Java 7 drop I guess. That's a good question. Hope this happens
> soon.
>
> Denis
>
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2017, Nikita Iva
You meant Java 7 drop I guess. That's a good question. Hope this happens
soon.
Denis
On Tuesday, September 26, 2017, Nikita Ivanov wrote:
> What about Java 8 to begin with?
>
> --
> Nikita Ivanov
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Denis Magda > wrote:
>
> > Eventually now it’s time to put
What about Java 8 to begin with?
--
Nikita Ivanov
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Denis Magda wrote:
> Eventually now it’s time to put all the doubts aside on when Ignite should
> support JDK 9. The JDK is production ready and was released not long time
> ago.
>
> Is there anyone interested t
I will review in the next few days.
-Val
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Denis Magda wrote:
> Hello Nikolay,
>
> This is good news. Finally this capability is coming to Ignite.
>
> Val, Vladimir, could you do a preliminary review?
>
> Answering on your questions.
>
> 1. Yardstick should be eno
Eventually now it’s time to put all the doubts aside on when Ignite should
support JDK 9. The JDK is production ready and was released not long time ago.
Is there anyone interested to enable JDK 9 for Ignite?
—
Denis
> On Mar 24, 2017, at 10:22 AM, Denis Magda wrote:
>
> Evgenii,
>
> Thanks
Denis Mek.,
How do you suggest executing the same query without SQL? Please be specific if
you advise discontinuing the SQL for the use case.
Alex P., Vladimir,
What’s the main reason of WITH RECURSIVE removal? Why it worked before and
broken now?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-
Hi, done!
Welcome to the Ignite community!
Get familiar with Ignite development process described here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Development+Process
Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute
Hello Nikolay,
This is good news. Finally this capability is coming to Ignite.
Val, Vladimir, could you do a preliminary review?
Answering on your questions.
1. Yardstick should be enough for performance measurements. As a Spark user, I
will be curious to know what’s the point of this integra
GitHub user voipp opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2759
exception when trying to check threadId for remote
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/voipp/ignite ignite-5714-6
Alternatively you
Alexei Scherbakov created IGNITE-6507:
-
Summary: Commit can be lost in network split scenario
Key: IGNITE-6507
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6507
Project: Ignite
Issue
GitHub user alexpaschenko opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2758
IGNITE-6440 Test fx
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-6440
Alternatively you can review and
GitHub user vk23 opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2757
IGNITE-6346 Fix: distributed set does not work in REPLICATED mode
Changes:
1. Fixed bug
2. Added tests
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https:/
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Can we add version of current node to web request? This way we will better
> understand version distribution, what might help us with certain API
> update/deprecate decisions
> E.g. http://ignite.apache.org/latest.cgi&ver=2.2.0
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Dmitry Pavlov
wrote:
> Hi Dmitriy, thank you for reply. Do you agree Memory Policy already became
> Ignite's term? We call this configuration now MemoryPolicy(Configuration),
> can we call new configuration elments by their existings name? We can avoid
> introduct
+ dev list
Hi John,
As the one who worked on this documentation, I confirm that it’s correct.
In my opinion, the only missing thing is that an index page (node) can comprise
key/value if the latter is of primitive type (int, float, char, String of
specific length). *Vladimir*, *Sam*, could you
Joel Lang created IGNITE-6506:
-
Summary: Unable to activate cluster node if it was stopped during
persistent storage checkpoint
Key: IGNITE-6506
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6506
Proj
Pavel Tupitsyn created IGNITE-6505:
--
Summary: .NET: Verify output in ExamplesTest
Key: IGNITE-6505
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6505
Project: Ignite
Issue Type: Improvem
Hello, Guys.
I found that CacheConfiguration which implements Serializable contains not
serializable fields by default.
CacheConfiguration -> affMapper -> CacheDefaultBinaryAffinityKeyMapper ->
proc -> CacheObjectBinaryProcessorImpl.
Is this a bug or I miss something?
Simple reproducer:
```
pu
Ivan Rakov created IGNITE-6504:
--
Summary: Very quick checkpoint can cause AssertionError on next
start from LFS
Key: IGNITE-6504
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6504
Project: Ignite
Mikhail,
Could you prepare a properly described ticket encompassing the suggested
warning? Let’s do the improvement for the upcoming release.
—
Denis
> On Sep 26, 2017, at 7:23 AM, Mikhail Cherkasov
> wrote:
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> The problem is that we don't have strong typing when defining Qu
GitHub user DmitriyGovorukhin opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2756
ignite-gg-pitr-2.1.5 merge to PITR (master)
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite PITR
Alternativel
Hi Igniters,
I have been looking in to the per-entry overhead for Ignite cache entries
and have a couple of questions.
1. Does each GridCacheMapEntry require a reference to GridCacheContext
or could this field be removed/optimized in some way? Is the
GridCacheContext instance the same for every e
GitHub user ptupitsyn opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2755
IGNITE-5730 .NET: Fix ignite.jni.dll temp dir race
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/ptupitsyn/ignite ignite-5730-1
Alternativ
Hi Dmitriy, thank you for reply. Do you agree Memory Policy already became
Ignite's term? We call this configuration now MemoryPolicy(Configuration),
can we call new configuration elments by their existings name? We can avoid
introduction of second Ignite's term in that case.
вт, 26 сент. 2017 г.
GitHub user ptupitsyn opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2754
IGNITE-5615 .NET: IgniteConfiguration.LocalEventListeners
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-5615
Hi Dmitry,
The problem is that we don't have strong typing when defining QueryEntriy
and a user can use an arbitrary string id to
define a type, but he should use the same string id to obtain binary object
builder, however, people sometimes confusing this.
So the user can define QueryEntity with v
Dmitriy, we are not renaming classes, we are refactoring them. Prior to
this design, it was impossible to set persistence configuration on
per-cache basis. With this new design, users will be able to configure some
caches to be in-memory only and others to be on disk.
Given that we are already ref
Vladimir, it is not clear for me, why we need to rename existing
configuration classes. Could you explain? And if we can't get consensus
now, should we pospond solution?
My idea is that user needs this feature more than elegant names in
configuration.
Moreover once MemoryPolicyConfiguration was i
GitHub user voipp opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2753
ignite-5714 updateExplicitVersion for detached entry
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/voipp/ignite ignite-5714-7
Alternatively yo
I do not understand why we should delay with renames. Yes, it will cause
questions, so we will have to put additional efforts to docs and JavaDocs.
But the earlier we do that, the better.
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Dmitry Pavlov
wrote:
> Hi Igniters, sorry for late response. I didn't catch
Hi Igniters, sorry for late response. I didn't catch idea of renaming.
PersistentStoreConfiguration is intuitive, and MemoryPolicyConfiguration is
intuitive also.
If we rename these classes now, it will bring more questions to user list.
Users may be confused by old and new names and by trying to
GitHub user dspavlov opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2752
IGNITE-6285: Enhance persistent store paths logging on start
Experimental commits to run TC tests, do not merge
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull ht
Folks,
Can we add version of current node to web request? This way we will better
understand version distribution, what might help us with certain API
update/deprecate decisions
E.g. http://ignite.apache.org/latest.cgi&ver=2.2.0
Vladimir.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2747
---
GitHub user voipp opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2751
Adding lock if timeout is negative
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/voipp/ignite
ignite-5714-local-lock-not-covered
Alternativel
GitHub user schernolyas opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2750
IGNITE-6286: fix org.h2.jdbc.JdbcSQLException
changes:
1. develop test for check all supported types for parameterized queries
2. add support BigDecimal type as type of paraameter's
GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2749
IGNITE-6186: Removed redundant parameter.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite ignite-6186
Alterna
Github user schernolyas closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2737
---
I do not like DurableMemoryConfiguration, because it's quite confusing - we
configure in-memory caches using DurableMemory class, which immediately
suggests that everything will be persisted. I am not sure if this is a
right wording choice for the documentation either. I would go with
DataStoreConf
GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2748
IGNITE-6015: Rollback on exception in commitIfLocked.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite ignite-6
GitHub user devozerov opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2747
Attempt to fix not-null compatibility issue.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-gg-12822
Alternat
Why don't we automatically set the preferIPv4Stack to true, unless the user
explicitly set it to false?
D.
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> Val, I see now.
>
> For example, this http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/How-
> to-correctly-shut-down-Ignite-Applicatio
Val, I see now.
For example, this http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/How-
to-correctly-shut-down-Ignite-Application-td12548.html could happen due to
address passed to
org.apache.ignite.internal.util.IgniteUtils#reachable(java.net.InetAddress,
int) is NULL.
I suspect there may be probl
Yakov Zhdanov created IGNITE-6503:
-
Summary: Need to test Ignite in IPv6 environment
Key: IGNITE-6503
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6503
Project: Ignite
Issue Type: Improv
Yakov Zhdanov created IGNITE-6502:
-
Summary: Need to output warning if -Djava.net.preferIPv4Stack=true
is not set
Key: IGNITE-6502
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6502
Project: Ignit
GitHub user voipp opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2746
Ignite 5714 2
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/voipp/ignite ignite-5714-2
Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as
Dmitriy,
Agree with Vladimir here. OPTIMISTIC + (READ_COMMITTED | REPEATABLE_READ)
modes are completely unusable in real-life use-cases because they do not
allow any read-write conflict detection and thus the explicit transaction
statement can be omitted at all. The remaining combinations of tx
co
GitHub user sk0x50 opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2745
Ignite 1.8.12
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-1.8.12
Alternatively you can review and apply these
Hi
I would like to request for Contributors Permissions for Ignite Development.
JIRA Username : kotamrajuyashasvi
Presently I would like to assign myself to an Issue which I raised and fix
it.
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/POJO-field-having-wrapper-type-mapped-to-cassandra-table
Github user voipp closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2494
---
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Vladimir Ozerov
wrote:
> Dima,
>
> My proposal would require two changes:
> 1) Public - for sure we will continue support old API
>
Of course. But my assumption is that you would deprecate the old API,
right? If yes, then you will never be able to remove the dep
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2741
---
Hi!
I was prepared https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2737 PR. The PR fix
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6286 . Please, review it
Also, the PR is very important for project Hibernate OGM for Ignite.
A lot of thank!
With best regards, Sergey Chernolyas
--
Sent from: http:/
Dima,
My proposal would require two changes:
1) Public - for sure we will continue support old API
2) Internal TX engine - these changes are inevitable for transactional SQL
support.
So we have no freedom to choose whether to spend time on internals or not.
We will have to do that anyway.
On Tue
59 matches
Mail list logo