Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties. Can you please respond in ticket? --Yakov 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>: > Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to > myself. > > --Yakov > > 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladis...@gmail.com>: > >> Hi, >> >> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, >> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next >> release. >> >> Best regards, >> Vladisav >> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < >> alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Folks, >> > >> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the same >> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be changed >> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is held. >> The >> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue can >> be >> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore currently >> > works. >> > >> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my >> first >> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led to >> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please re-test >> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures? >> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm >> done >> > with IGNITE-2610. >> > >> > >
