On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Yakov, > > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now, > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed. > > Once ignite-642 is merged into master, > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6. > release). > This would be awesome :) > > Best regrads, > Vladisav > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments? > > > > Thanks! > > -- > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D > > *GridGain Systems* > > www.gridgain.com > > > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>: > > > > > 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. > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
