Very good news, Vlad! I will take a look over weekend or on Monday. --Yakov
2016-04-08 12:58 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladis...@gmail.com>: > Yakov, > > sorry for the long delay, I added another commit to the PR, > can you please do the review again? > > Thanks! > Vladisav > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladis...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again? > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Vlad, can you please check my comments again? > >> > >> --Yakov > >> > >> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladis...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> > 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). > >> > > >> > 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. > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
