Vlad, I reviewed the code and committed it to ignite-642 branch (after some minor style changes + I added new tests to suites).
Alex G & Sam can you please review (see diff with our current master) and provide comments here. I think we are very close to finish with this issue. Thanks for contributing this! --Yakov 2016-04-11 18:22 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>: > 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. >>> >> > > >>> > >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >
