nabarunnag opened a new pull request #16: GEODE-6084: Refactored the benchmark
code as per review.
URL: https://github.com/apache/geode-benchmarks/pull/16
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode-benchmarks/pull/16
]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
What happens when region is destroyed with API and it has jdbc-mapping?
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2950 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
[ pull request closed by PurelyApplied ]
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2939 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
[ pull request closed by PurelyApplied ]
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2920 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
Because the only public way we have of destroying a jdbc-mapping is a gfsh
command. All those other examples also have public apis that let you remove the
other thing. Although at least some of your examples do not prevent a region
from being destroyed (cache writer and loader; I don't know
I updated this to use the term configuration rather than the abbreviation.
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2954 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
See my [recent
comment](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6032?focusedCommentId=16710787=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16710787)
on GEODE-6032.
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2953 ]
This message was relayed
Rebased to current develop and no longer try to get keeper objects for UDP
ports. Also added better testing of the new behavior.
Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache Geode.
In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
to ensure the following steps have been
@BenjaminPerryRoss @monkeyherder @gemzdude please review
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2957 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache Geode.
In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
to ensure the following steps have been taken:
### For all changes:
- [ ] Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced in the
commit message?
- [ ] Has
[ pull request closed by smgoller ]
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode-benchmarks/pull/15
]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
smgoller closed pull request #15: Convert to sole tenant style cluster.
URL: https://github.com/apache/geode-benchmarks/pull/15
This is a PR merged from a forked repository.
As GitHub hides the original diff on merge, it is displayed below for
the sake of provenance:
As this is a foreign
Failure at `291134b` appears to be open ticket GEODE-6008. Rerunning
precheckin as part of this merge in any case.
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2939 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
[ pull request closed by jinmeiliao ]
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2951 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
Here's my version:
_Returns true if this object has pending changes that can be transmitted as a
delta._
If that's not enough then maybe:
_Returns true if this object has pending changes that can be transmitted as a
delta. Returns false if this object must be transmitted in its entirety._
[
Here's my version:
```
Returns true if this object has pending changes that can be transmitted as a
delta.
```
If that's not enough then maybe:
```
Returns true if this object has pending changes that can be transmitted as a
delta. Returns false if this object must be transmitted in its
smgoller opened a new pull request #15: Convert to sole tenant style cluster.
URL: https://github.com/apache/geode-benchmarks/pull/15
This launches the cluster using single-tenant nodes instead of random
instances.
This is
This launches the cluster using single-tenant nodes instead of random instances.
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode-benchmarks/pull/15
]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
This removes old-I/O use in TCPConduit peer-to-peer communications.
This was used for SSL/TLS secure commuications but Java has had an
SSLEngine implementation that allows you to implement secure
communications on new-I/O SocketChannels or any other transport
mechanism.
A new NioSSLEngine class
Oops, I just saw we do check "service != null. So I'd be satisfied if you just
change "config" to "configuration".
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2954 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
The problem I have with saying "data source saved to cluster config" is it
might not happen. I suggest only adding this to the message here if "service"
is not null. Even in that case should we say here: "will attempt to save to
cluster configuration" instead? (Note: change "config" to
Thanks Bruce. I wanted to make it clear what is communicated based on
hasDelta().
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2953 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
I wonder if we should just replace this regardless of the original URI
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2951 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/414 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache Geode.
In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
to ensure the following steps have been taken:
### For all changes:
- [X] Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced in the
commit message?
- [X] Has
I'm sorry but this javadoc doesn't seem at all clear to me and it has
grammatical errors. I think you should keep the original Javadoc and append
something like this:
_Returns false if pending changes are not available, which will cause the
entire object to be transmitted to other processes._
[ pull request closed by dhemery ]
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2788 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
… could end up with NPE
@jhuynh1 @bschuchardt
Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache Geode.
In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
to ensure the following steps have been taken:
### For all changes:
- [ ] Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is
upthewaterspout closed pull request #13: Ignoring extra hosts in
SshInfrastructure
URL: https://github.com/apache/geode-benchmarks/pull/13
This is a PR merged from a forked repository.
As GitHub hides the original diff on merge, it is displayed below for
the sake of provenance:
As this
[ pull request closed by upthewaterspout ]
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode-benchmarks/pull/13
]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
@dhemery can this PR be closed if it was moved to #2937?
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2788 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
@sboorlagadda are you waiting for something before merging these approved
changes, besides resolving conflicts?
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2563 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
@galen-pivotal What you waiting for to merge this change?
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2546 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
WireBaron closed pull request #14: GEODE-6145: Allow multiple results for a
single probe analyzer
URL: https://github.com/apache/geode-benchmarks/pull/14
This is a PR merged from a forked repository.
As GitHub hides the original diff on merge, it is displayed below for
the sake of
[ pull request closed by WireBaron ]
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode-benchmarks/pull/14
]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
[ pull request closed by kirklund ]
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2949 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
Thanks for merging @bschuchardt!
Now that you've fixed lots of the alerts, have you considered enabling the
[Automated Code Review](https://lgtm.com/projects/g/apache/geode/ci/)?
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2948 ]
This message was relayed via
It isn't, got left on accident. Thanks!
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2915 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
Sure could. Was staying consistent with the other swizzle happening here.
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2915 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
There is a class in the `geode-cq` that inherits from this inner class. Tt was
able to before because it was in the same package but to support modules we
can't split packages across jars anymore. In order for the `geode-cq` class to
access this class it must now be public. Since it is
[ pull request closed by karensmolermiller ]
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2942 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
This string and the one below it are used twice in this class. Maybe extract
them into `static final` fields?
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2915 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
Not sure this comment is very helpful
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2915 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
Why does this need to be public now? I suppose it is part of an internal
package, so does that mean we don't need to worry about this being a public API
change? Mainly I'm just curious why this became public, I'm not seeing the
corresponding usage that requires it to be public in this PR.
[
[ pull request closed by pdxcodemonkey ]
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/413 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
[ pull request closed by bschuchardt ]
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2948 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
47 matches
Mail list logo
