Hi Denis,

Thanks for your reply.
So, summing up, it seems that in the context of my use case, version 1.5
does not differ from 1.4? Which means that I still cannot achieve my goal:
different versions of the same class (from different clients) running on
the cluster at the same time?

As far as I understand this involves:
1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1823
2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2339
3. Removing the requirement for caches to work only with SHARED and
CONTINUOUS deployment modes (this was announced by Dmitriy in
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Distributed-queue-problem-with-peerClassLoading-enabled-tp1762p1829.html
)

Is there any chance the above use case will be possible in near future (any
upcoming version)?

I really like the API and concept of Ignite. If only I could achieve the
above scenario...

Cheers,
-Mateusz



On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Denis Magda <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mateusz,
>
> It doesn’t work for now because peerClassLoading doesn’t work for objects
> that are stored in the binary format in a cache.
> Since starting from 1.5 BinaryMarshaller is a default one all the objects
> are stored in a such format in caches by default.
>
> If you prefer to turn off such a behavior you can set
> IgniteConfiguration.setMarshaller(new OptimizedMarshaller()) for every node
> and your test should work as before.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> On 7 янв. 2016 г., at 17:09, mp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello Denis,
>
> Thanks a lot for your reply!
> Concerning point 2: does it mean that "peerClassLoading" simply does not
> work in 1.5?
> It used to work (partially) in 1.4 (details described earlier in the
> message thread).
>
> Cheers,
> -Mateusz
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Denis Magda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mateusz,
>>
>> 1. It seems that distributed cache is still *not* available in
>> PRIVATE/ISOLATED modes. Is this correct?
>>
>> Right, it hasn't been fixed yet. I've just followed up the related
>> discussion on the dev list. Please follow it to see the most up-to-date
>> information
>>
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Fwd-Distributed-queue-problem-with-peerClassLoading-enabled-tp4521p6440.html
>>
>> 2. When I run my simple test code in the default SHARED mode (the same as
>> specified in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1823 jira
>> issue),
>> I still get an error. However the cause exception seems to be different.
>> Please see attached server log.
>>
>> The reason is that there is an attempt to deserialize a binary object
>> stored on a server node and the server node doesn't have object's class
>> definition in its class path.
>> I've opened a ticket
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2339
>>
>> As a workaround you can put a class definition on server's class path and
>> the problem will disappear.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Denis
>>
>> On 1/7/2016 1:30 PM, mjjp wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have just downloaded 1.5.0-final to check if my problem has been
>>> resolved.
>>> Either I'm doing something wrong, or version 1.5 has the same behavior in
>>> this context:
>>>
>>> 1. It seems that distributed cache is still *not* available in
>>> PRIVATE/ISOLATED modes. Is this correct?
>>>
>>> 2. When I run my simple test code in the default SHARED mode (the same as
>>> specified in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1823 jira
>>> issue),
>>> I still get an error. However the cause exception seems to be different.
>>> Please see attached server log.
>>>
>>> Would you be able to check the attached log to verify if this is an
>>> expected
>>> behavior in 1.5?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Mateusz
>>>
>>> ignite-fd14d572.log
>>> <
>>> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/file/n2416/ignite-fd14d572.log
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Distributed-queue-problem-with-peerClassLoading-enabled-tp1762p2416.html
>>> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com
>>> <http://nabble.com>.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to