Yakov, I've answered. Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same things.
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> wrote: > 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. >>> > >>> >> >> >
