Yakov, I am not sure we fixed it. Plus sometimes we encode missing value as -1, so it is written as 4 bytes still.
Dmitry, to my knowledge Unsafe will be available only when special VM flag is set. It is not a problem for ignite.sh, but may cause usability issues when running in embedded mode. Moreover, some methods will be removed from Unsafe, e.g. monitorEnter(). So I doubt we even compilable with Java 9 now. 14 июля 2016 г. 16:27 пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < dsetrak...@apache.org> написал: > Vova, why Unsafe removal? To my knowledge, Unsafe still remains in Java 9, > no? > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Several points from my side: > > 1) Java 9 support - Unsafe removal, modules, etc.. > > 2) Rework our "messages" subsystem - we always read/write all fields, > thus > > transferring lots of zeros without any reason. We should support > branching. > > 3) Review all messages (especially cache, double-especially - atomic) in > > terms of performance. Most probably we will refactor/split some of them. > > > > 14 июля 2016 г. 12:06 пользователь "Yakov Zhdanov" <yzhda...@apache.org> > > написал: > > > > > Alex, a lot of excitement for Ignite-2.0 from my side! =) > > > > > > I agree with your points and I will take a close look at them in the > > > nearest future. > > > > > > Here are some suggestions from me. > > > > > > I don't remember if I shared my thoughts on moving to single TCP port > per > > > node. So, I filed a new ticket - > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3480. If we already have > > > another one let's merge them. > > > > > > I would also think over removing communication SPI and discovery SPI > and > > > introducing communication and discovery processors instead. In some > > places > > > Ignite pretty much relies on internal implementation details of these > > SPIs > > > which makes implementation of any other SPI pretty complex task. Btw, > did > > > anyone did that? Removing SPIs will allow us to cleanup the code and > use > > > common abstractions and logic. > > > > > > I will give some more ideas going forward. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > > > 2016-07-14 4:43 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > >: > > > > > > > So, no excitement about Ignite 2.0? :) > > > > > > > > I went ahead and created a 2.0 version in Ignite Jira, and included > the > > > > following tickets so far based on the chance that this ticket will > > > require > > > > breaking changes in APIs/Configuration > > > > - IGNITE-3469 - Get rid of deprecated APIs and code > > > > - IGNTIE-3477 - Rework offheap storage > > > > - IGNITE-3478 - Transactional SQL > > > > - IGNITE-1605 - Provide stronger data loss check > > > > - IGNITE-3306 - Extend IgniteCluster interface with the methods to > > send > > > > and receive custom discovery events > > > > > > > > I believe that there are many more changes that we wanted to make but > > > > delayed because they would break binary compatibility, so if you have > > > > something in mind - it's time to create a ticket or assign it to 2.0 > if > > > it > > > > exists. It's good to know the scope of work. > > > > > > > > Also, it would be great if you review/comment the above-mentioned > > > tickets. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > AG > > > > > > > > > >
