Vlad, I did not have time today. Will review tomorrow. --Yakov
2016-04-08 13:51 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>: > 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. >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >
