Hi Paolo, See my comment in the ticket.
-Val On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Paolo Di Tommaso <paolo.ditomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Val, > > I surely can contribute on that issue but I would need a fix as soon as > possible so I will do both. Thus, I will try the dirty path on my own > implementation and to implement a fix for IGNITE-1267 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1267>. > > However also in the above issue the last comment suggests to remove the > check on the task topology and I have any clue of any better alternative. > Could you clarify how do you think it should be fixed? > > > Cheers, > Paolo > > > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:56 PM, vkulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Paolo, > > > > I found the ticket about this issue [1]. How about picking it up and > fixing > > instead of implementing your own version of the SPI? > > > > Removing the check completely is wrong, because it's possible that a node > > doesn't belong to the cluster group on which the task was executed. But > we > > should check the original predicate instead of collection of nodes sealed > > during the map phase. > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1267 > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Failed-to-send-message-tp3217p3317.html > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >
