On 11/30/11 8:59 AM, Dan Berindei wrote:
Why don't you send the UUID as a (16 byte) string then ?
Yeah, that would work. However, a UUID is not always a valid UTF-8
string, so we should probably define it in the protocol as an array of
bytes (without any meaning).
Yes. We did something
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Bela Ban b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/30/11 8:59 AM, Dan Berindei wrote:
Why don't you send the UUID as a (16 byte) string then ?
Yeah, that would work. However, a UUID is not always a valid UTF-8
string, so we should probably define it in the protocol as
On Nov 30, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Dan Berindei wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Bela Ban b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/30/11 8:59 AM, Dan Berindei wrote:
Why don't you send the UUID as a (16 byte) string then ?
Yeah, that would work. However, a UUID is not always a valid UTF-8
Hi,
We've been having a discussion this morning with regards to the Hot Rod changes
introduced in 5.1 with regards to hashing.
When Hot Rod server is deployed in AS, in order to start correctly, it requires
the Hot Rod server to start before any other (clustered) caches in AS. This is
because
On Nov 29, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Bela Ban wrote:
On 11/29/11 2:10 PM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
Hi,
We've been having a discussion this morning with regards to the Hot Rod
changes introduced in 5.1 with regards to hashing.
When Hot Rod server is deployed in AS, in order to start
On 11/29/11 3:50 PM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
On Nov 29, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Bela Ban wrote:
On 11/29/11 2:10 PM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
Hi,
We've been having a discussion this morning with regards to the Hot Rod
changes introduced in 5.1 with regards to hashing.
When Hot Rod server
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Bela Ban b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/29/11 3:50 PM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
On Nov 29, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Bela Ban wrote:
On 11/29/11 2:10 PM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
Hi,
We've been having a discussion this morning with regards to the Hot Rod
changes
On 11/29/11 6:16 PM, Dan Berindei wrote:
The underlying UUID would be printed (not a nice sight !)...
Hmm, I sometimes see UUIDs in the test suite logs. This makes me
think, can we rely on the discovery protocol always giving us the
logical names of the other cluster members during/after
