[GitHub] [geode] albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: GEODE-7971: Gw sender deliver TX events atomically to Gw receivers

2020-05-22 Thread GitBox
albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: URL: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4928#issuecomment-632576516 > > > The problem with the doc comments was not that they were extensive, but that they got modified when you pasted the diff here and the resulting test was not a valid diff

[GitHub] [geode] albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: GEODE-7971: Gw sender deliver TX events atomically to Gw receivers

2020-05-19 Thread GitBox
albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: URL: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4928#issuecomment-631253004 > > The problem with the doc comments was not that they were extensive, but that they got modified when you pasted the diff here and the resulting test was not a valid diff I

[GitHub] [geode] albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: GEODE-7971: Gw sender deliver TX events atomically to Gw receivers

2020-05-19 Thread GitBox
albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: URL: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4928#issuecomment-630952955 > > @albertogpz I know the doc comments were extensive. I'll push the changes I'm sure about and dialog with you on points I'm unsure about. One item for you to verify: the

[GitHub] [geode] albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: GEODE-7971: Gw sender deliver TX events atomically to Gw receivers

2020-05-19 Thread GitBox
albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: URL: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4928#issuecomment-630952282 > @albertogpz I know the doc comments were extensive. I'll push the changes I'm sure about and dialog with you on points I'm unsure about. One item for you to verify: the

[GitHub] [geode] albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: GEODE-7971: Gw sender deliver TX events atomically to Gw receivers

2020-05-18 Thread GitBox
albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: URL: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4928#issuecomment-630039797 > I've reviewed the doc components and I have some changes to propose. Most are concerned with grammar and format. The only technical one is to replace references to the

[GitHub] [geode] albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: GEODE-7971: Gw sender deliver TX events atomically to Gw receivers

2020-05-11 Thread GitBox
albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: URL: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4928#issuecomment-626524327 > Methods named `isGroupTransactionEvents` might be better named `shouldGroupTransactionEvents`. Similarly, fields/variables named `isGroupTransactionEvents` might be better

[GitHub] [geode] albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: GEODE-7971: Gw sender deliver TX events atomically to Gw receivers

2020-04-29 Thread GitBox
albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: URL: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4928#issuecomment-621255116 > If I do this: > > * start site 1 with a sender with batch size = 5 > > * do a transaction with 1 customer and 10 orders > > * don't start site

[GitHub] [geode] albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: GEODE-7971: Gw sender deliver TX events atomically to Gw receivers

2020-04-28 Thread GitBox
albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: URL: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4928#issuecomment-620529529 Thanks for your comments. Please, see below: > I ran a test with this scenario: > > * 2 colocated partitioned regions called customer and order attached to a

[GitHub] [geode] albertogpz commented on pull request #4928: GEODE-7971: Gw sender deliver TX events atomically to Gw receivers

2020-04-20 Thread GitHub
You are right, the code is very similar (just as it happens with the peek method) but the structures on which they operate are different: On the SerialGatewaySenderQueue it operates on a set of transactionIds while on the ParallelGatewaySenderQueue it operates on a map of . Besides, the