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. > > >
