date:20210310

Re: IGNITE-2399 : Asynchronous Acquire method in IgniteSemaphore

2021-03-10 Thread Atri Sharma

Hi Val,

Thank you for taking the time on this one.

The main reason as to why I chose that signature was because I felt it
gave a clear idea of the interface that the user should expect when
using the method. So essentially, the user is providing a callback
listener himself/herself and the API is just using that to tie the
lifecycle of holding the semaphore.

However, I do see your point and feel that the current signature that
the PR has will limit the usability of the method and make users jump
through more hoops. I have changed the signature to accept Callable
returning T.

Regards,

Atri

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 5:29 AM Valentin Kulichenko
 wrote:
>
> Hi Atri,
>
> First and foremost, we need to clarify the API for this functionality.
> There are two options presented in the ticket, but no clear decision about
> which one should be used. I personally think that the original signature
> (the one in the ticket description) makes more sense, but it looks like
> you've implemented an alternative suggested in the comments. What was your
> motivation behind that?
>
> As for where the method can be located, I'm OK if we add it directly to the
> IgniteSemaphore interface.
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 8:22 AM Atri Sharma  wrote:
>
> > Gentle ping
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2021, 13:51 Atri Sharma,  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I would like to start a discussion around IGNITE-2399.
> > >
> > > Background: The typical use of IgniteSemaphore consists of acquiring
> > > the semaphore, performing the task and releasing the semaphore. This
> > > JIRA proposes a new method which will accept a callable, acquire the
> > > semaphore, and return a future. Upon completion of the future, the
> > > semaphore is released.
> > >
> > > This API seems useful for an easy encapsulation of the described use
> > > case and does not cause an internal flux since all the changes are
> > > focused at the public API.
> > >
> > > WIP PR for the same:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8820
> > >
> > > Please share your thoughts and comments.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Atri
> > > Apache Concerted
> > >
> >

-- 
Regards,

Atri
Apache Concerted

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14295) Message interface to be introduced

2021-03-10 Thread Sergey Chugunov (Jira)

Sergey Chugunov created IGNITE-14295:


 Summary: Message interface to be introduced
 Key: IGNITE-14295
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14295
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Sub-task
Reporter: Sergey Chugunov


Network module should introduce a public Message interface to handle messages 
to send and receive.

This interface should provide at least information about message type (and 
possible version) to enable effective serialization/deserialization and ability 
to subscribe for a messages of certain type.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14296) Classe

2021-03-10 Thread Sergey Chugunov (Jira)

Sergey Chugunov created IGNITE-14296:


 Summary: Classe
 Key: IGNITE-14296
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14296
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Sub-task
Reporter: Sergey Chugunov


Classes' names in network module are self-explanatory and don't need a special 
prefix, it could be removed to make the code more compact.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14297) API to unregister HandlerProvider from network module

2021-03-10 Thread Sergey Chugunov (Jira)

Sergey Chugunov created IGNITE-14297:


 Summary: API to unregister HandlerProvider from network module
 Key: IGNITE-14297
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14297
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Sub-task
Reporter: Sergey Chugunov
 Fix For: 3.0.0-alpha2


At the moment client components can register HandlerProviders in network 
component but cannot unregister them.

However this could be important in component lifecycle to properly stop the 
component.

API to unregister handler from the network with clear contract about possible 
races (one thread unregisteres component's handler, another thread sends a 
message from the same component) should be implemented.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14298) DEVNOTES should contain clear instructions on how to run check-style.

2021-03-10 Thread Vyacheslav Koptilin (Jira)

Vyacheslav Koptilin created IGNITE-14298:


 Summary: DEVNOTES should contain clear instructions on how to run 
check-style.
 Key: IGNITE-14298
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14298
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: Vyacheslav Koptilin
 Fix For: 3.0.0-alpha2


DEVNOTES should provide clear instructions on how to run the {{checkstyle}} && 
{{apache-rat}} targets for the project/particular sub-module.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

Re: IGNITE-2399 : Asynchronous Acquire method in IgniteSemaphore

2021-03-10 Thread Atri Sharma

I have just updated the PR:

https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8820

Please review.

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 1:51 PM Atri Sharma  wrote:
>
> Hi Val,
>
> Thank you for taking the time on this one.
>
> The main reason as to why I chose that signature was because I felt it
> gave a clear idea of the interface that the user should expect when
> using the method. So essentially, the user is providing a callback
> listener himself/herself and the API is just using that to tie the
> lifecycle of holding the semaphore.
>
> However, I do see your point and feel that the current signature that
> the PR has will limit the usability of the method and make users jump
> through more hoops. I have changed the signature to accept Callable
> returning T.
>
> Regards,
>
> Atri
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 5:29 AM Valentin Kulichenko
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Atri,
> >
> > First and foremost, we need to clarify the API for this functionality.
> > There are two options presented in the ticket, but no clear decision about
> > which one should be used. I personally think that the original signature
> > (the one in the ticket description) makes more sense, but it looks like
> > you've implemented an alternative suggested in the comments. What was your
> > motivation behind that?
> >
> > As for where the method can be located, I'm OK if we add it directly to the
> > IgniteSemaphore interface.
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 8:22 AM Atri Sharma  wrote:
> >
> > > Gentle ping
> > >
> > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2021, 13:51 Atri Sharma,  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to start a discussion around IGNITE-2399.
> > > >
> > > > Background: The typical use of IgniteSemaphore consists of acquiring
> > > > the semaphore, performing the task and releasing the semaphore. This
> > > > JIRA proposes a new method which will accept a callable, acquire the
> > > > semaphore, and return a future. Upon completion of the future, the
> > > > semaphore is released.
> > > >
> > > > This API seems useful for an easy encapsulation of the described use
> > > > case and does not cause an internal flux since all the changes are
> > > > focused at the public API.
> > > >
> > > > WIP PR for the same:
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8820
> > > >
> > > > Please share your thoughts and comments.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Atri
> > > > Apache Concerted
> > > >
> > >
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> Apache Concerted



-- 
Regards,

Atri
Apache Concerted

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

2021-03-10 Thread Maxim Muzafarov

Folks,


Agree, the discussion may be endless without compromises on all sides.
I always think that if there is no consensus (and I see from the
thread [1] that it's was no found) for such important decisions like
product future development and releases AFS provides the voting
procedure. Without fixing the results of the discussion [1] it sounds
like prototyping some cool features and nothing more.

So, back to Denis suggestion can you share - what would be the best
time for all of us (considering different time zones) to have a call?

I also think that we should start a vote about the future releases on
our Apache Ignite web-site and user-list, thus all who are using the
Apache Ignite may choose the best option they like.


[1] 
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Ignite-3-0-development-approach-td49922.html

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 03:57, Valentin Kulichenko
 wrote:
>
> Hi Maxim,
>
> I disagree with the suggestions. Several community members have already
> pointed out the discussion about Ignite 3.0 [1]. During that discussion, we
> did agree on the scope of the changes for 3.0, as well as the general
> direction for the product. The new repo was created not to "develop from
> scratch", but to provide an opportunity for the community members to
> actively work on Ignite 3 without killing the Ignite 2.x. No alternative
> solution for this was presented, so we went ahead with the process -- I
> consider that to be an example of the silent consensus.
>
> I also want to emphasize that Ignite 3 is active and is moving forward. If
> you look at the ignite-3 repo, commits and PRs are coming in on regular
> basis. We also had the first alpha release early in the year. I do agree
> with you, however, that there is not too much activity on the dev list. As
> far as I can tell, the main reason for this is that communication moved to
> IEPs and GitHub PRs, for better or worse. This is something we all can talk
> about -- I personally would like to see more discussions on the dev list.
>
> And finally, I agree with Denis. This whole situation is
> counter-productive. I'm happy to jump on a Discord or any other voice chat
> to discuss in more detail.
>
> [1]
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Ignite-3-0-development-approach-td49922.html
>
> -Val
>
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:09 AM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
> > Ignites,
> >
> >
> > I've created the IEP-69 [1] which describes the evolutionary release
> > process for the Apache Ignite 2.x version. You can find all the
> > details of my suggestion there, but here you can find the crucial
> > points:
> >
> > 0. Versioning - grand.major.bug-fix[-rc_number]
> >
> > 1. Prepare the next 3.0 release based on 2.x with some breaking
> > compatibility changes. The same things happen from time to time with
> > other Apache projects like Hadoop, Spark.
> >
> > 2. Discuss with the whole Community and assign the right release
> > version to the activities related to the development of the new Ignite
> > architecture (currently all the changes you can find in the ignite-3
> > branch).
> > I see no 3.0 discussions on the dev-list and I see no-activity with
> > the 3.0 version currently. So,  it's better to remove the `lock` from
> > the 3.0 version and allow the removal of obsolete features.
> >
> > 3. Guarantee the PDS compatibility between the `grand` versions of the
> > Apache Ignite for the next year.
> >
> > 4. Guarantee the bug-fix release for the last 2.x Apache Ignite
> > version for the next year.
> >
> > 5. Perform some improvements which break the backward compatibility,
> > for instance: removing @deprecated API (except metrics), removing
> > obsolete modules, changing the cluster defaults. You can find
> > additional details on the IEP-69 page [1].
> >
> >
> > Please, share your thoughts.
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-69%3A+The+evolutionary+release+process
> >

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

2021-03-10 Thread Pavel Tupitsyn

Maxim,

No objections to those cherry-picks,
please also include https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293

Thanks!

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:54 AM Ilya Kasnacheev 
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Unless we do extra checks for Windows environment, I suggest merging
> IGNITE-14284 
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> вт, 9 мар. 2021 г. в 20:26, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> > Folks,
> >
> >
> > Sharing the release status:
> >
> > .NET: AffinityKey does not work - In-Progress
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> >
> > sqlline: `Property "url" is required' - Patch Available
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14284
> >
> > sqllline: `Bad history file syntax!' - Resolved
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14285
> >
> >
> > I'd like to cherry-pick the following fixed bugs to the 2.10 release
> > branch.
> > Do you have any objections?
> >
> > IGNITE-14250 .NET: Fix race condition in Events example, test example
> > output
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14250
> >
> > IGNITE-14168 fix description of validate_indexes command (#8798)
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14168
> >
> > IGNITE-14138 Fixed an issue where historical rebalance can kill
> > supplier node. Fixes #8769
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14138
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 21:26, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> > >
> > > Igor,
> > >
> > > Many thanks for fixing the issue!
> > > I've cherry-picked it to the 2.10 branch.
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > I'll finalize the latest changes for the documentation pages and
> > > prepare the rc build shortly.
> > >
> > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 21:08, Igor Sapego  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The following commit should be cherry-picked:
> > 0675e2a7e800730c9c8230332b82809754ddae5a
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for a delay.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Igor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 9:06 PM Igor Sapego 
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Maxim,
> > > >>
> > > >> The issue is fixed and is merged to master now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best Regards,
> > > >> Igor
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 8:12 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hello Igor,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> >  I believe I could fix the ticket [1] by the end of the next
> week.
> > > >>> Should we still wait a bit for t his fix or postpone it to 2.10.1?
> > WDYT?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14204
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 11:20, Max Timonin  >
> > wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Hi, Maxim!
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > The bug IGNITE-14206 [1] fixed. There are 2 commits to
> cherry-pick
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > 1.
> > > >>> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/851f650ba03e0b6c081cfe23f411fd2bf6be0228
> > > >>> > 2.
> > > >>> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/93b74922bd04b164301d7bc5a2788b9693d4a8a4
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14206
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 5:47 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> mmu...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > > Anton,
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > Your improvement is very important, for sure, but it's almost 2
> > months
> > > >>> > > have passed since the initiation of the release branch. I think
> > we
> > > >>> > > should prepare the changes as fast as possible for now and
> > initiate
> > > >>> > > with the next one release. In general, it would be nice to
> have a
> > > >>> > > release plan for the year ahead so each developer will
> > understand on
> > > >>> > > which release his changes can get into.
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > That's why I'm going to prepare an RC-build on Monday 1-st
> March.
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 11:13, Anton Vinogradov 
> > wrote:
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Maxim,
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13873
> > > >>> > > > Is ready for review, is it possible to wait for it?
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 12:01 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
> > mmu...@apache.org>
> > > >>> > > wrote:
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > > Folks,
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > I'd like to cherry-pick to the release branch the following
> > fixes:
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > Fix security context for JDBC bulk-load operations
> > > >>> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13472
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > Fixed an issue that caused a deadlock when user cache was
> > created in
> > > >>> > > > > parallel with TTL worker was in progress.
> > > >>> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14078
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 at 20:26, Maxim Muzafarov <
> > mmu...@apache.org>
> > > >>> > > wrote:
> > > >>> > > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > > Maxim, Igor,
> > > >>> > > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > > Thanks for sharing detail

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14299) .Net Service loses array type information in case .Net <-> .Net call

2021-03-10 Thread Nikolay Izhikov (Jira)

Nikolay Izhikov created IGNITE-14299:


 Summary: .Net Service loses array type information in case .Net 
<-> .Net call
 Key: IGNITE-14299
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14299
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Improvement
Reporter: Nikolay Izhikov
Assignee: Nikolay Izhikov


In case .Net -> .Net service call Ignite loses arra type information.
{code:java}
using Apache.Ignite.Core;
using Apache.Ignite.Core.Discovery.Tcp;
using Apache.Ignite.Core.Discovery.Tcp.Static;
using Apache.Ignite.Core.Services;
using Castle.DynamicProxy;
using System;
using System.Linq;
using Xunit;

namespace Ignite.ServiceReturnsArray
{
public class Test : IDisposable
{
private readonly IIgnite igniteSrv;
private readonly IIgnite ignite;

public Test()
{
IgniteConfiguration IgniteConfig(bool clientMode) => new 
IgniteConfiguration()
{
ClientMode = clientMode,
IgniteInstanceName = Guid.NewGuid().ToString(),
DiscoverySpi = new TcpDiscoverySpi
{
IpFinder = new TcpDiscoveryStaticIpFinder { Endpoints = 
new[] { "127.0.0.1:47500" } }
}
};

igniteSrv = Ignition.Start(IgniteConfig(false));
ignite = Ignition.Start(IgniteConfig(true));


ignite.GetServices().DeployClusterSingleton(nameof(ArrayFactoryService), new 
ArrayFactoryService());
}

public void Dispose()
{
ignite.Dispose();
igniteSrv.Dispose();
}

[Fact]
public void ServiceReturnsArray()
{
var arr = 
ignite.GetServices().GetServiceProxy(nameof(ArrayFactoryService),
 false)
.CreateArray(2, 1);

Assert.IsType(arr);
Assert.Equal(1, arr?[1]?.Value);
}

[Fact]
public void ServiceReturnsArrayWithReflection()
{
var arr = 
typeof(IArrayFactory).GetMethod(nameof(IArrayFactory.CreateArray)).Invoke(

ignite.GetServices().GetServiceProxy(nameof(ArrayFactoryService)),
new object[] { 2, 1 });

Assert.IsType(arr);
Assert.Equal(1, ((Result[])arr)?[1]?.Value);
}

[Fact]
public void ServiceReturnsArrayWithCastleProxy()
{
var interceptor = new ServiceInterceptor(ignite, 
nameof(ArrayFactoryService));

var arr = new 
ProxyGenerator().CreateInterfaceProxyWithoutTarget(interceptor)
.CreateArray(2, 1);

Assert.IsType(arr);
Assert.Equal(1, arr?[1]?.Value);
}

public sealed class Result
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}

public interface IArrayFactory
{
Result[] CreateArray(int size, int dlftVal);
}

public sealed class ArrayFactoryService : IArrayFactory, IService
{
public Result[] CreateArray(int size, int dfltVal)
{
return Enumerable.Repeat(new Result { Value = dfltVal }, 
size).ToArray();
}

public void Cancel(IServiceContext context)
{
}

public void Execute(IServiceContext context)
{
}

public void Init(IServiceContext context)
{
}
}

private sealed class ServiceInterceptor : IInterceptor where T: class
{
private readonly IIgnite ignite;
private readonly string name;

public ServiceInterceptor(IIgnite ignite, string name)
{
this.ignite = ignite;
this.name = name;
}

public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)
{
var svc = ignite.GetServices().GetServiceProxy(name, false);
invocation.ReturnValue = invocation.Method.Invoke(svc, 
invocation.Arguments);
}
}
}
}
 {code}
 

Above test fail on type check.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

2021-03-10 Thread Maxim Muzafarov

Pavel,


Can you assist a bit with the cherry-picking process of `.NET:
AffinityKey does not work` IGNITE-14293? I'm not sure I can understand
all the details of implementation and actually, I'm stuck a bit with
the `.NET: Race condition in Events example` IGNITE-14250 [2] issue
not sure what exactly I can exclude from the commit to resolve
conflicts since it has some of them with the 2.10 branch. I'm worried
about missing some important parts of the code.


- I dive a bit in addition to the .NET examples and found an issue [4]
that has `Fixed` status, however, I can't find it either by id or by
history.
- It is also an important issue (probably I've missed) the .NET:
Modernize examples [5]. Currently, it's not included in 2.10 (the fix
`.NET: Race condition in Events example` depends on it)

So, summarize all if mentioned above:

Can we cherry-pick only the `.NET: AffinityKey does not work`
IGNITE-14293 without all dependent issues? Or we should apply all from
the chain?


[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14250
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13661
[4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13661
[5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13979

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 18:50, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
>
> Maxim,
>
> No objections to those cherry-picks,
> please also include https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:54 AM Ilya Kasnacheev 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > Unless we do extra checks for Windows environment, I suggest merging
> > IGNITE-14284 
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > вт, 9 мар. 2021 г. в 20:26, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > >
> > > Sharing the release status:
> > >
> > > .NET: AffinityKey does not work - In-Progress
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> > >
> > > sqlline: `Property "url" is required' - Patch Available
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14284
> > >
> > > sqllline: `Bad history file syntax!' - Resolved
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14285
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd like to cherry-pick the following fixed bugs to the 2.10 release
> > > branch.
> > > Do you have any objections?
> > >
> > > IGNITE-14250 .NET: Fix race condition in Events example, test example
> > > output
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14250
> > >
> > > IGNITE-14168 fix description of validate_indexes command (#8798)
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14168
> > >
> > > IGNITE-14138 Fixed an issue where historical rebalance can kill
> > > supplier node. Fixes #8769
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14138
> > >
> > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 21:26, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Igor,
> > > >
> > > > Many thanks for fixing the issue!
> > > > I've cherry-picked it to the 2.10 branch.
> > > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I'll finalize the latest changes for the documentation pages and
> > > > prepare the rc build shortly.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 21:08, Igor Sapego  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The following commit should be cherry-picked:
> > > 0675e2a7e800730c9c8230332b82809754ddae5a
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for a delay.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > Igor
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 9:06 PM Igor Sapego 
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Maxim,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The issue is fixed and is merged to master now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best Regards,
> > > > >> Igor
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 8:12 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hello Igor,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> >  I believe I could fix the ticket [1] by the end of the next
> > week.
> > > > >>> Should we still wait a bit for t his fix or postpone it to 2.10.1?
> > > WDYT?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14204
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 11:20, Max Timonin  > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Hi, Maxim!
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > The bug IGNITE-14206 [1] fixed. There are 2 commits to
> > cherry-pick
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > 1.
> > > > >>> >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/851f650ba03e0b6c081cfe23f411fd2bf6be0228
> > > > >>> > 2.
> > > > >>> >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/93b74922bd04b164301d7bc5a2788b9693d4a8a4
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14206
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 5:47 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> > mmu...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > > Anton,
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > > Your improvement is very important, for sure, but it's almost 2
> > > months
> > > > >>> > > have passed since the initiation of the release branch. I think
> > > we
> > > > >>> > > should prepare the ch

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

2021-03-10 Thread Kseniya Romanova

Let's make a quick call next week and try to find a compromise which can
get the process moving:
https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/276851588/

ср, 10 мар. 2021 г. в 16:27, Maxim Muzafarov :

> Folks,
>
>
> Agree, the discussion may be endless without compromises on all sides.
> I always think that if there is no consensus (and I see from the
> thread [1] that it's was no found) for such important decisions like
> product future development and releases AFS provides the voting
> procedure. Without fixing the results of the discussion [1] it sounds
> like prototyping some cool features and nothing more.
>
> So, back to Denis suggestion can you share - what would be the best
> time for all of us (considering different time zones) to have a call?
>
> I also think that we should start a vote about the future releases on
> our Apache Ignite web-site and user-list, thus all who are using the
> Apache Ignite may choose the best option they like.
>
>
> [1]
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Ignite-3-0-development-approach-td49922.html
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 03:57, Valentin Kulichenko
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Maxim,
> >
> > I disagree with the suggestions. Several community members have already
> > pointed out the discussion about Ignite 3.0 [1]. During that discussion,
> we
> > did agree on the scope of the changes for 3.0, as well as the general
> > direction for the product. The new repo was created not to "develop from
> > scratch", but to provide an opportunity for the community members to
> > actively work on Ignite 3 without killing the Ignite 2.x. No alternative
> > solution for this was presented, so we went ahead with the process -- I
> > consider that to be an example of the silent consensus.
> >
> > I also want to emphasize that Ignite 3 is active and is moving forward.
> If
> > you look at the ignite-3 repo, commits and PRs are coming in on regular
> > basis. We also had the first alpha release early in the year. I do agree
> > with you, however, that there is not too much activity on the dev list.
> As
> > far as I can tell, the main reason for this is that communication moved
> to
> > IEPs and GitHub PRs, for better or worse. This is something we all can
> talk
> > about -- I personally would like to see more discussions on the dev list.
> >
> > And finally, I agree with Denis. This whole situation is
> > counter-productive. I'm happy to jump on a Discord or any other voice
> chat
> > to discuss in more detail.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Ignite-3-0-development-approach-td49922.html
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:09 AM Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ignites,
> > >
> > >
> > > I've created the IEP-69 [1] which describes the evolutionary release
> > > process for the Apache Ignite 2.x version. You can find all the
> > > details of my suggestion there, but here you can find the crucial
> > > points:
> > >
> > > 0. Versioning - grand.major.bug-fix[-rc_number]
> > >
> > > 1. Prepare the next 3.0 release based on 2.x with some breaking
> > > compatibility changes. The same things happen from time to time with
> > > other Apache projects like Hadoop, Spark.
> > >
> > > 2. Discuss with the whole Community and assign the right release
> > > version to the activities related to the development of the new Ignite
> > > architecture (currently all the changes you can find in the ignite-3
> > > branch).
> > > I see no 3.0 discussions on the dev-list and I see no-activity with
> > > the 3.0 version currently. So,  it's better to remove the `lock` from
> > > the 3.0 version and allow the removal of obsolete features.
> > >
> > > 3. Guarantee the PDS compatibility between the `grand` versions of the
> > > Apache Ignite for the next year.
> > >
> > > 4. Guarantee the bug-fix release for the last 2.x Apache Ignite
> > > version for the next year.
> > >
> > > 5. Perform some improvements which break the backward compatibility,
> > > for instance: removing @deprecated API (except metrics), removing
> > > obsolete modules, changing the cluster defaults. You can find
> > > additional details on the IEP-69 page [1].
> > >
> > >
> > > Please, share your thoughts.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-69%3A+The+evolutionary+release+process
> > >
>

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

2021-03-10 Thread Pavel Tupitsyn

Maxim,

Sure, I can assist with cherry-picks.

13661  is fixed by 13979
, as indicated by the
"fixed by" link in Jira and a comment.

IGNITE-14293 .NET: AffinityKey does not work
 is quite an unpleasant
regression,
I think we should include it in the release. It CAN be included without
14250  and 13979
.

14250 does not make sense without 13979.

Ultimately, the question is - do we want to include 13979 (.NET: Modernize
examples),
or not. Thoughts?


On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 7:45 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:

> Pavel,
>
>
> Can you assist a bit with the cherry-picking process of `.NET:
> AffinityKey does not work` IGNITE-14293? I'm not sure I can understand
> all the details of implementation and actually, I'm stuck a bit with
> the `.NET: Race condition in Events example` IGNITE-14250 [2] issue
> not sure what exactly I can exclude from the commit to resolve
> conflicts since it has some of them with the 2.10 branch. I'm worried
> about missing some important parts of the code.
>
>
> - I dive a bit in addition to the .NET examples and found an issue [4]
> that has `Fixed` status, however, I can't find it either by id or by
> history.
> - It is also an important issue (probably I've missed) the .NET:
> Modernize examples [5]. Currently, it's not included in 2.10 (the fix
> `.NET: Race condition in Events example` depends on it)
>
> So, summarize all if mentioned above:
>
> Can we cherry-pick only the `.NET: AffinityKey does not work`
> IGNITE-14293 without all dependent issues? Or we should apply all from
> the chain?
>
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14250
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13661
> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13661
> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13979
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 18:50, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
> >
> > Maxim,
> >
> > No objections to those cherry-picks,
> > please also include https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:54 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > Unless we do extra checks for Windows environment, I suggest merging
> > > IGNITE-14284 
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >
> > >
> > > вт, 9 мар. 2021 г. в 20:26, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sharing the release status:
> > > >
> > > > .NET: AffinityKey does not work - In-Progress
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> > > >
> > > > sqlline: `Property "url" is required' - Patch Available
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14284
> > > >
> > > > sqllline: `Bad history file syntax!' - Resolved
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14285
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to cherry-pick the following fixed bugs to the 2.10 release
> > > > branch.
> > > > Do you have any objections?
> > > >
> > > > IGNITE-14250 .NET: Fix race condition in Events example, test example
> > > > output
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14250
> > > >
> > > > IGNITE-14168 fix description of validate_indexes command (#8798)
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14168
> > > >
> > > > IGNITE-14138 Fixed an issue where historical rebalance can kill
> > > > supplier node. Fixes #8769
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14138
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 21:26, Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Igor,
> > > > >
> > > > > Many thanks for fixing the issue!
> > > > > I've cherry-picked it to the 2.10 branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll finalize the latest changes for the documentation pages and
> > > > > prepare the rc build shortly.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 21:08, Igor Sapego 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The following commit should be cherry-picked:
> > > > 0675e2a7e800730c9c8230332b82809754ddae5a
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry for a delay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > Igor
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 9:06 PM Igor Sapego 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Maxim,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The issue is fixed and is merged to master now.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Best Regards,
> > > > > >> Igor
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 8:12 PM Maxim Muzafarov <
> mmu...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Hello Igor,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> >  I believe I could fix the ticket [1] by the end of the next
> > > week.
> > > > > >>> Should we still wait a bit for t his fix or postpone it to
> 2.10.

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

2021-03-10 Thread Maxim Muzafarov

Pavel,


I think it is better and safe to cherry-pick the `IGNITE-14293 .NET:
AffinityKey does not work` only. I will be very happy to accept your
help with it.


The IGNITE-13979 (.NET: Modernize examples) is very big and has some
related issues too (most of them are fixed), so I think it is better
here to postpone it to the next release and give it a bit of time for
the self-stabilization process :-)

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 20:17, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
>
> Maxim,
>
> Sure, I can assist with cherry-picks.
>
> 13661 is fixed by 13979, as indicated by the "fixed by" link in Jira and a 
> comment.
>
> IGNITE-14293 .NET: AffinityKey does not work is quite an unpleasant 
> regression,
> I think we should include it in the release. It CAN be included without 14250 
> and 13979.
>
> 14250 does not make sense without 13979.
>
> Ultimately, the question is - do we want to include 13979 (.NET: Modernize 
> examples),
> or not. Thoughts?
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 7:45 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>>
>> Pavel,
>>
>>
>> Can you assist a bit with the cherry-picking process of `.NET:
>> AffinityKey does not work` IGNITE-14293? I'm not sure I can understand
>> all the details of implementation and actually, I'm stuck a bit with
>> the `.NET: Race condition in Events example` IGNITE-14250 [2] issue
>> not sure what exactly I can exclude from the commit to resolve
>> conflicts since it has some of them with the 2.10 branch. I'm worried
>> about missing some important parts of the code.
>>
>>
>> - I dive a bit in addition to the .NET examples and found an issue [4]
>> that has `Fixed` status, however, I can't find it either by id or by
>> history.
>> - It is also an important issue (probably I've missed) the .NET:
>> Modernize examples [5]. Currently, it's not included in 2.10 (the fix
>> `.NET: Race condition in Events example` depends on it)
>>
>> So, summarize all if mentioned above:
>>
>> Can we cherry-pick only the `.NET: AffinityKey does not work`
>> IGNITE-14293 without all dependent issues? Or we should apply all from
>> the chain?
>>
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14250
>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13661
>> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13661
>> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13979
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 18:50, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
>> >
>> > Maxim,
>> >
>> > No objections to those cherry-picks,
>> > please also include https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:54 AM Ilya Kasnacheev 
>> > 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hello!
>> > >
>> > > Unless we do extra checks for Windows environment, I suggest merging
>> > > IGNITE-14284 
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > --
>> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > вт, 9 мар. 2021 г. в 20:26, Maxim Muzafarov :
>> > >
>> > > > Folks,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Sharing the release status:
>> > > >
>> > > > .NET: AffinityKey does not work - In-Progress
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
>> > > >
>> > > > sqlline: `Property "url" is required' - Patch Available
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14284
>> > > >
>> > > > sqllline: `Bad history file syntax!' - Resolved
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14285
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I'd like to cherry-pick the following fixed bugs to the 2.10 release
>> > > > branch.
>> > > > Do you have any objections?
>> > > >
>> > > > IGNITE-14250 .NET: Fix race condition in Events example, test example
>> > > > output
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14250
>> > > >
>> > > > IGNITE-14168 fix description of validate_indexes command (#8798)
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14168
>> > > >
>> > > > IGNITE-14138 Fixed an issue where historical rebalance can kill
>> > > > supplier node. Fixes #8769
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14138
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 21:26, Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Igor,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Many thanks for fixing the issue!
>> > > > > I've cherry-picked it to the 2.10 branch.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Folks,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'll finalize the latest changes for the documentation pages and
>> > > > > prepare the rc build shortly.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 21:08, Igor Sapego  wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The following commit should be cherry-picked:
>> > > > 0675e2a7e800730c9c8230332b82809754ddae5a
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Sorry for a delay.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Best Regards,
>> > > > > > Igor
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 9:06 PM Igor Sapego 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Maxim,
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> The issue is fixed and is merged to master now.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Best Regards,
>> > > > > >> Igor
>> > > > > >>
>> > > >

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14300) Rebalance speed as part of test result data

2021-03-10 Thread Dmitriy Sorokin (Jira)

Dmitriy Sorokin created IGNITE-14300:


 Summary: Rebalance speed as part of test result data
 Key: IGNITE-14300
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14300
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Sub-task
Reporter: Dmitriy Sorokin
Assignee: Dmitriy Sorokin


Need to add properly calculated rebalance speed value to the test result data. 
To do that, need to get the total rebalanced data size using jmx metrics or 
control.sh utility.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14301) Authentication processor can hang all user management operation after server node reconnect

2021-03-10 Thread Mikhail Petrov (Jira)

Mikhail Petrov created IGNITE-14301:
---

Summary: Authentication processor can hang all user management
operation after server node reconnect
Key: IGNITE-14301
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14301
Project: Ignite
Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: Mikhail Petrov

First for all look at the test -
AuthenticationProcessorNodeRestartTest#testConcurrentAddUpdateRemoveNodeRestartServer
- [TC
history|https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=IgniteTests24Java8&testNameId=-8873434544416175780&tab=testDetails]

The first problem with this test is that user management
operations(add/update/remove) create too many discovery messages. So discovery
custom message history size is not enough to properly skip duplicated custom
messages that can be sent across the ring during server node reconnect. It
leads to test failures due to duplication of user management operations (see
GridDiscoveryManager#discoCacheHist, IGNITE_DISCOVERY_HISTORY_SIZE system
property, and ServerImpl.RingMessageWorker#sendMessageAcrossRing).

If the discovery history size will be increased significantly, the test stops
failing and starts hanging. The steps that lead to this:
1. Client node sent UserProposedMessage across the ring while one node is
offline due to reconnect.
2. Alive server nodes update their local user lists and finish the operation.
3. Reconnected node joins the ring and receives an updated user list from the
coordinator.
4. Reconnected node receives duplicated UserProposedMessage that has been
already handled by all nodes, handles it, and sents
UserManagementOperationFinishedMessage to the coordinator and start to wait for
the UserAcceptedMessage from it. But the coordinator has already finished this
operation. So the thread that responsible for user management operation on the
reconnected node becomes blocked (see
IgniteAuthenticationProcessor.UserOperationWorker#body).
5. Client node starts the next operation that needs all alive nodes to respond
with UserManagementOperationFinishedMessage. But reconnected node
authentication thread is blocked. So this operation can't be completed at all.

--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

2021-03-10 Thread Pavel Tupitsyn

Maxim,

I see that you have already cherry-picked IGNITE-13979 - was that
intentional?
If we keep it, let's cherry-pick 14250 as well?

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:

> Pavel,
>
>
> I think it is better and safe to cherry-pick the `IGNITE-14293 .NET:
> AffinityKey does not work` only. I will be very happy to accept your
> help with it.
>
>
> The IGNITE-13979 (.NET: Modernize examples) is very big and has some
> related issues too (most of them are fixed), so I think it is better
> here to postpone it to the next release and give it a bit of time for
> the self-stabilization process :-)
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 20:17, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
> >
> > Maxim,
> >
> > Sure, I can assist with cherry-picks.
> >
> > 13661 is fixed by 13979, as indicated by the "fixed by" link in Jira and
> a comment.
> >
> > IGNITE-14293 .NET: AffinityKey does not work is quite an unpleasant
> regression,
> > I think we should include it in the release. It CAN be included without
> 14250 and 13979.
> >
> > 14250 does not make sense without 13979.
> >
> > Ultimately, the question is - do we want to include 13979 (.NET:
> Modernize examples),
> > or not. Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 7:45 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Pavel,
> >>
> >>
> >> Can you assist a bit with the cherry-picking process of `.NET:
> >> AffinityKey does not work` IGNITE-14293? I'm not sure I can understand
> >> all the details of implementation and actually, I'm stuck a bit with
> >> the `.NET: Race condition in Events example` IGNITE-14250 [2] issue
> >> not sure what exactly I can exclude from the commit to resolve
> >> conflicts since it has some of them with the 2.10 branch. I'm worried
> >> about missing some important parts of the code.
> >>
> >>
> >> - I dive a bit in addition to the .NET examples and found an issue [4]
> >> that has `Fixed` status, however, I can't find it either by id or by
> >> history.
> >> - It is also an important issue (probably I've missed) the .NET:
> >> Modernize examples [5]. Currently, it's not included in 2.10 (the fix
> >> `.NET: Race condition in Events example` depends on it)
> >>
> >> So, summarize all if mentioned above:
> >>
> >> Can we cherry-pick only the `.NET: AffinityKey does not work`
> >> IGNITE-14293 without all dependent issues? Or we should apply all from
> >> the chain?
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14250
> >> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13661
> >> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13661
> >> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13979
> >>
> >> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 18:50, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Maxim,
> >> >
> >> > No objections to those cherry-picks,
> >> > please also include
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:54 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hello!
> >> > >
> >> > > Unless we do extra checks for Windows environment, I suggest merging
> >> > > IGNITE-14284 
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > > --
> >> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > вт, 9 мар. 2021 г. в 20:26, Maxim Muzafarov :
> >> > >
> >> > > > Folks,
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Sharing the release status:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > .NET: AffinityKey does not work - In-Progress
> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> >> > > >
> >> > > > sqlline: `Property "url" is required' - Patch Available
> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14284
> >> > > >
> >> > > > sqllline: `Bad history file syntax!' - Resolved
> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14285
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'd like to cherry-pick the following fixed bugs to the 2.10
> release
> >> > > > branch.
> >> > > > Do you have any objections?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > IGNITE-14250 .NET: Fix race condition in Events example, test
> example
> >> > > > output
> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14250
> >> > > >
> >> > > > IGNITE-14168 fix description of validate_indexes command (#8798)
> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14168
> >> > > >
> >> > > > IGNITE-14138 Fixed an issue where historical rebalance can kill
> >> > > > supplier node. Fixes #8769
> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14138
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 21:26, Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Igor,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Many thanks for fixing the issue!
> >> > > > > I've cherry-picked it to the 2.10 branch.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Folks,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I'll finalize the latest changes for the documentation pages and
> >> > > > > prepare the rc build shortly.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 21:08, Igor Sapego 
> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Th

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

2021-03-10 Thread Maxim Muzafarov

Pavel,

Sorry, my bad. Entangled in my local branches during trying to
cherry-pick related commits.
I've reverted this change.


On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 21:58, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
>
> Maxim,
>
> I see that you have already cherry-picked IGNITE-13979 - was that
> intentional?
> If we keep it, let's cherry-pick 14250 as well?
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
> > Pavel,
> >
> >
> > I think it is better and safe to cherry-pick the `IGNITE-14293 .NET:
> > AffinityKey does not work` only. I will be very happy to accept your
> > help with it.
> >
> >
> > The IGNITE-13979 (.NET: Modernize examples) is very big and has some
> > related issues too (most of them are fixed), so I think it is better
> > here to postpone it to the next release and give it a bit of time for
> > the self-stabilization process :-)
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 20:17, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
> > >
> > > Maxim,
> > >
> > > Sure, I can assist with cherry-picks.
> > >
> > > 13661 is fixed by 13979, as indicated by the "fixed by" link in Jira and
> > a comment.
> > >
> > > IGNITE-14293 .NET: AffinityKey does not work is quite an unpleasant
> > regression,
> > > I think we should include it in the release. It CAN be included without
> > 14250 and 13979.
> > >
> > > 14250 does not make sense without 13979.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, the question is - do we want to include 13979 (.NET:
> > Modernize examples),
> > > or not. Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 7:45 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Pavel,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Can you assist a bit with the cherry-picking process of `.NET:
> > >> AffinityKey does not work` IGNITE-14293? I'm not sure I can understand
> > >> all the details of implementation and actually, I'm stuck a bit with
> > >> the `.NET: Race condition in Events example` IGNITE-14250 [2] issue
> > >> not sure what exactly I can exclude from the commit to resolve
> > >> conflicts since it has some of them with the 2.10 branch. I'm worried
> > >> about missing some important parts of the code.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> - I dive a bit in addition to the .NET examples and found an issue [4]
> > >> that has `Fixed` status, however, I can't find it either by id or by
> > >> history.
> > >> - It is also an important issue (probably I've missed) the .NET:
> > >> Modernize examples [5]. Currently, it's not included in 2.10 (the fix
> > >> `.NET: Race condition in Events example` depends on it)
> > >>
> > >> So, summarize all if mentioned above:
> > >>
> > >> Can we cherry-pick only the `.NET: AffinityKey does not work`
> > >> IGNITE-14293 without all dependent issues? Or we should apply all from
> > >> the chain?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> > >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14250
> > >> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13661
> > >> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13661
> > >> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13979
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 18:50, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Maxim,
> > >> >
> > >> > No objections to those cherry-picks,
> > >> > please also include
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks!
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:54 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hello!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Unless we do extra checks for Windows environment, I suggest merging
> > >> > > IGNITE-14284 
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Regards,
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > вт, 9 мар. 2021 г. в 20:26, Maxim Muzafarov :
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Folks,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Sharing the release status:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > .NET: AffinityKey does not work - In-Progress
> > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > sqlline: `Property "url" is required' - Patch Available
> > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14284
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > sqllline: `Bad history file syntax!' - Resolved
> > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14285
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I'd like to cherry-pick the following fixed bugs to the 2.10
> > release
> > >> > > > branch.
> > >> > > > Do you have any objections?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > IGNITE-14250 .NET: Fix race condition in Events example, test
> > example
> > >> > > > output
> > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14250
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > IGNITE-14168 fix description of validate_indexes command (#8798)
> > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14168
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > IGNITE-14138 Fixed an issue where historical rebalance can kill
> > >> > > > supplier node. Fixes #8769
> > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14138
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 2

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

2021-03-10 Thread Pavel Tupitsyn

Maxim, thanks!
I've cherry-picked IGNITE-14293.

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:05 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:

> Pavel,
>
> Sorry, my bad. Entangled in my local branches during trying to
> cherry-pick related commits.
> I've reverted this change.
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 21:58, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
> >
> > Maxim,
> >
> > I see that you have already cherry-picked IGNITE-13979 - was that
> > intentional?
> > If we keep it, let's cherry-pick 14250 as well?
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Pavel,
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it is better and safe to cherry-pick the `IGNITE-14293 .NET:
> > > AffinityKey does not work` only. I will be very happy to accept your
> > > help with it.
> > >
> > >
> > > The IGNITE-13979 (.NET: Modernize examples) is very big and has some
> > > related issues too (most of them are fixed), so I think it is better
> > > here to postpone it to the next release and give it a bit of time for
> > > the self-stabilization process :-)
> > >
> > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 20:17, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > Sure, I can assist with cherry-picks.
> > > >
> > > > 13661 is fixed by 13979, as indicated by the "fixed by" link in Jira
> and
> > > a comment.
> > > >
> > > > IGNITE-14293 .NET: AffinityKey does not work is quite an unpleasant
> > > regression,
> > > > I think we should include it in the release. It CAN be included
> without
> > > 14250 and 13979.
> > > >
> > > > 14250 does not make sense without 13979.
> > > >
> > > > Ultimately, the question is - do we want to include 13979 (.NET:
> > > Modernize examples),
> > > > or not. Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 7:45 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Pavel,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Can you assist a bit with the cherry-picking process of `.NET:
> > > >> AffinityKey does not work` IGNITE-14293? I'm not sure I can
> understand
> > > >> all the details of implementation and actually, I'm stuck a bit with
> > > >> the `.NET: Race condition in Events example` IGNITE-14250 [2] issue
> > > >> not sure what exactly I can exclude from the commit to resolve
> > > >> conflicts since it has some of them with the 2.10 branch. I'm
> worried
> > > >> about missing some important parts of the code.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> - I dive a bit in addition to the .NET examples and found an issue
> [4]
> > > >> that has `Fixed` status, however, I can't find it either by id or by
> > > >> history.
> > > >> - It is also an important issue (probably I've missed) the .NET:
> > > >> Modernize examples [5]. Currently, it's not included in 2.10 (the
> fix
> > > >> `.NET: Race condition in Events example` depends on it)
> > > >>
> > > >> So, summarize all if mentioned above:
> > > >>
> > > >> Can we cherry-pick only the `.NET: AffinityKey does not work`
> > > >> IGNITE-14293 without all dependent issues? Or we should apply all
> from
> > > >> the chain?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> > > >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14250
> > > >> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13661
> > > >> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13661
> > > >> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13979
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 18:50, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Maxim,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > No objections to those cherry-picks,
> > > >> > please also include
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:54 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hello!
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Unless we do extra checks for Windows environment, I suggest
> merging
> > > >> > > IGNITE-14284 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14284>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Regards,
> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > вт, 9 мар. 2021 г. в 20:26, Maxim Muzafarov  >:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Folks,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Sharing the release status:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > .NET: AffinityKey does not work - In-Progress
> > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > sqlline: `Property "url" is required' - Patch Available
> > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14284
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > sqllline: `Bad history file syntax!' - Resolved
> > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14285
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I'd like to cherry-pick the following fixed bugs to the 2.10
> > > release
> > > >> > > > branch.
> > > >> > > > Do you have any objections?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > IGNITE-14250 .NET: Fix race condition in Events example, test
> > > example
> > > >> > > > output
> > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

2021-03-10 Thread Maxim Muzafarov

Pavel,

Thank you! I'll prepare a new rc shortly.

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 23:20, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
>
> Maxim, thanks!
> I've cherry-picked IGNITE-14293.
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:05 PM Maxim Muzafarov  wrote:
>
> > Pavel,
> >
> > Sorry, my bad. Entangled in my local branches during trying to
> > cherry-pick related commits.
> > I've reverted this change.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 21:58, Pavel Tupitsyn  wrote:
> > >
> > > Maxim,
> > >
> > > I see that you have already cherry-picked IGNITE-13979 - was that
> > > intentional?
> > > If we keep it, let's cherry-pick 14250 as well?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pavel,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think it is better and safe to cherry-pick the `IGNITE-14293 .NET:
> > > > AffinityKey does not work` only. I will be very happy to accept your
> > > > help with it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The IGNITE-13979 (.NET: Modernize examples) is very big and has some
> > > > related issues too (most of them are fixed), so I think it is better
> > > > here to postpone it to the next release and give it a bit of time for
> > > > the self-stabilization process :-)
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 20:17, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Maxim,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, I can assist with cherry-picks.
> > > > >
> > > > > 13661 is fixed by 13979, as indicated by the "fixed by" link in Jira
> > and
> > > > a comment.
> > > > >
> > > > > IGNITE-14293 .NET: AffinityKey does not work is quite an unpleasant
> > > > regression,
> > > > > I think we should include it in the release. It CAN be included
> > without
> > > > 14250 and 13979.
> > > > >
> > > > > 14250 does not make sense without 13979.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ultimately, the question is - do we want to include 13979 (.NET:
> > > > Modernize examples),
> > > > > or not. Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 7:45 PM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Pavel,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can you assist a bit with the cherry-picking process of `.NET:
> > > > >> AffinityKey does not work` IGNITE-14293? I'm not sure I can
> > understand
> > > > >> all the details of implementation and actually, I'm stuck a bit with
> > > > >> the `.NET: Race condition in Events example` IGNITE-14250 [2] issue
> > > > >> not sure what exactly I can exclude from the commit to resolve
> > > > >> conflicts since it has some of them with the 2.10 branch. I'm
> > worried
> > > > >> about missing some important parts of the code.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - I dive a bit in addition to the .NET examples and found an issue
> > [4]
> > > > >> that has `Fixed` status, however, I can't find it either by id or by
> > > > >> history.
> > > > >> - It is also an important issue (probably I've missed) the .NET:
> > > > >> Modernize examples [5]. Currently, it's not included in 2.10 (the
> > fix
> > > > >> `.NET: Race condition in Events example` depends on it)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So, summarize all if mentioned above:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can we cherry-pick only the `.NET: AffinityKey does not work`
> > > > >> IGNITE-14293 without all dependent issues? Or we should apply all
> > from
> > > > >> the chain?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> > > > >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14250
> > > > >> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13661
> > > > >> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13661
> > > > >> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13979
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 18:50, Pavel Tupitsyn 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Maxim,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > No objections to those cherry-picks,
> > > > >> > please also include
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:54 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Hello!
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Unless we do extra checks for Windows environment, I suggest
> > merging
> > > > >> > > IGNITE-14284 <
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14284>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Regards,
> > > > >> > > --
> > > > >> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > вт, 9 мар. 2021 г. в 20:26, Maxim Muzafarov  > >:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Folks,
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Sharing the release status:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > .NET: AffinityKey does not work - In-Progress
> > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14293
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > sqlline: `Property "url" is required' - Patch Available
> > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14284
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > sqllline: `Bad history file syntax!' - Resolved
> > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/brows

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

2021-03-10 Thread Valentin Kulichenko

Ksenya, thanks for scheduling this so quickly!

Guys, I hope we can make this discussion constructive. Please keep in mind
that Ignite 3 is an ongoing project supported by multiple contributors,
committers, and PMC members. Neglecting 6+ months of effort and suggesting
that it's just "prototyping some cool features and nothing more" is really
bizarre, and, quite frankly, sounds disrespectful to fellow developers
(although I'm 100% sure it was not intended this way).

Maxim, one of the biggest issues I have with your IEP is that I don't
understand the motivation behind it. If you don't mind, I would like to
suggest that you kick off the meeting with a detailed explanation
of exactly that. The first step is to achieve a mutual understanding of
each other's goals. Once we do that, I'm sure we will easily find a
solution.

-Val

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:55 AM Kseniya Romanova 
wrote:

> Let's make a quick call next week and try to find a compromise which can
> get the process moving:
> https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/276851588/
>
> ср, 10 мар. 2021 г. в 16:27, Maxim Muzafarov :
>
> > Folks,
> >
> >
> > Agree, the discussion may be endless without compromises on all sides.
> > I always think that if there is no consensus (and I see from the
> > thread [1] that it's was no found) for such important decisions like
> > product future development and releases AFS provides the voting
> > procedure. Without fixing the results of the discussion [1] it sounds
> > like prototyping some cool features and nothing more.
> >
> > So, back to Denis suggestion can you share - what would be the best
> > time for all of us (considering different time zones) to have a call?
> >
> > I also think that we should start a vote about the future releases on
> > our Apache Ignite web-site and user-list, thus all who are using the
> > Apache Ignite may choose the best option they like.
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Ignite-3-0-development-approach-td49922.html
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 03:57, Valentin Kulichenko
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Maxim,
> > >
> > > I disagree with the suggestions. Several community members have already
> > > pointed out the discussion about Ignite 3.0 [1]. During that
> discussion,
> > we
> > > did agree on the scope of the changes for 3.0, as well as the general
> > > direction for the product. The new repo was created not to "develop
> from
> > > scratch", but to provide an opportunity for the community members to
> > > actively work on Ignite 3 without killing the Ignite 2.x. No
> alternative
> > > solution for this was presented, so we went ahead with the process -- I
> > > consider that to be an example of the silent consensus.
> > >
> > > I also want to emphasize that Ignite 3 is active and is moving forward.
> > If
> > > you look at the ignite-3 repo, commits and PRs are coming in on regular
> > > basis. We also had the first alpha release early in the year. I do
> agree
> > > with you, however, that there is not too much activity on the dev list.
> > As
> > > far as I can tell, the main reason for this is that communication moved
> > to
> > > IEPs and GitHub PRs, for better or worse. This is something we all can
> > talk
> > > about -- I personally would like to see more discussions on the dev
> list.
> > >
> > > And finally, I agree with Denis. This whole situation is
> > > counter-productive. I'm happy to jump on a Discord or any other voice
> > chat
> > > to discuss in more detail.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Ignite-3-0-development-approach-td49922.html
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:09 AM Maxim Muzafarov 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ignites,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've created the IEP-69 [1] which describes the evolutionary release
> > > > process for the Apache Ignite 2.x version. You can find all the
> > > > details of my suggestion there, but here you can find the crucial
> > > > points:
> > > >
> > > > 0. Versioning - grand.major.bug-fix[-rc_number]
> > > >
> > > > 1. Prepare the next 3.0 release based on 2.x with some breaking
> > > > compatibility changes. The same things happen from time to time with
> > > > other Apache projects like Hadoop, Spark.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Discuss with the whole Community and assign the right release
> > > > version to the activities related to the development of the new
> Ignite
> > > > architecture (currently all the changes you can find in the ignite-3
> > > > branch).
> > > > I see no 3.0 discussions on the dev-list and I see no-activity with
> > > > the 3.0 version currently. So,  it's better to remove the `lock` from
> > > > the 3.0 version and allow the removal of obsolete features.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Guarantee the PDS compatibility between the `grand` versions of
> the
> > > > Apache Ignite for the next year.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Guarantee the bug-fix release for the last 2.x Apache Ignite
> >

Re: IGNITE-2399 : Asynchronous Acquire method in IgniteSemaphore

2021-03-10 Thread Valentin Kulichenko

Atri,

I've added my comments to the PR.

-Val

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:44 AM Atri Sharma  wrote:

> I have just updated the PR:
>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8820
>
> Please review.
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 1:51 PM Atri Sharma  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Val,
> >
> > Thank you for taking the time on this one.
> >
> > The main reason as to why I chose that signature was because I felt it
> > gave a clear idea of the interface that the user should expect when
> > using the method. So essentially, the user is providing a callback
> > listener himself/herself and the API is just using that to tie the
> > lifecycle of holding the semaphore.
> >
> > However, I do see your point and feel that the current signature that
> > the PR has will limit the usability of the method and make users jump
> > through more hoops. I have changed the signature to accept Callable
> > returning T.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 5:29 AM Valentin Kulichenko
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Atri,
> > >
> > > First and foremost, we need to clarify the API for this functionality.
> > > There are two options presented in the ticket, but no clear decision
> about
> > > which one should be used. I personally think that the original
> signature
> > > (the one in the ticket description) makes more sense, but it looks like
> > > you've implemented an alternative suggested in the comments. What was
> your
> > > motivation behind that?
> > >
> > > As for where the method can be located, I'm OK if we add it directly
> to the
> > > IgniteSemaphore interface.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 8:22 AM Atri Sharma  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gentle ping
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2021, 13:51 Atri Sharma,  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to start a discussion around IGNITE-2399.
> > > > >
> > > > > Background: The typical use of IgniteSemaphore consists of
> acquiring
> > > > > the semaphore, performing the task and releasing the semaphore.
> This
> > > > > JIRA proposes a new method which will accept a callable, acquire
> the
> > > > > semaphore, and return a future. Upon completion of the future, the
> > > > > semaphore is released.
> > > > >
> > > > > This API seems useful for an easy encapsulation of the described
> use
> > > > > case and does not cause an internal flux since all the changes are
> > > > > focused at the public API.
> > > > >
> > > > > WIP PR for the same:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8820
> > > > >
> > > > > Please share your thoughts and comments.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Atri
> > > > > Apache Concerted
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> > Apache Concerted
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Atri
> Apache Concerted
>

[VOTE] Release Apache Ignite 2.10.0 RC2

2021-03-10 Thread Maxim Muzafarov

Dear Community,

I have uploaded a release candidate to:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/2.10.0-rc2/
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/ignite/packages_2.10.0-rc2/

The following staging can be used for testing:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheignite-1507/
https://www.myget.org/feed/apache-ignite-staging/package/nuget/Apache.Ignite

Tag name is 2.10.0-rc2:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/2.10.0-rc2

RELEASE_NOTES:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=RELEASE_NOTES.txt;hb=ignite-2.10

Complete list of resolved issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=(project%20%3D%20'Ignite'%20AND%20fixVersion%20is%20not%20empty%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20('2.10'))

DEVNOTES:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=blob_plain;f=DEVNOTES.txt;hb=ignite-2.10


Additional checks have been performed (available for users included into
the release group on TeamCity).

TC [Check RC: Licenses, compile, chksum]
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5909007&buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote4CheckRcLicensesChecksum

TC [3] Build & Upload Nuget Staging Packages
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5909005&buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_PrepareVote3BuildNuGetPackages&tab=artifacts

TC [2] Compare w/ Previous Release
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=5909003&buildTypeId=ApacheIgniteReleaseJava8_IgniteRelease72CheckFileConsistency&tab=artifacts#


The vote is formal, see voting guidelines
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

+1 - to accept Apache Ignite 2.10.0-rc2
0 - don't care either way
-1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite Ignite 2.10.0-rc2 (explain why)

See notes on how to verify release here
https://www.apache.org/info/verification.html
and
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-P5.VotingonReleaseandReleaseVerification

This vote will be open until Sun Mar 14, 09:00 UTC.
Please, write down the thread if you need additional time to check
the release.
https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/vote?iso=20210314T12&p0=166&msg=Vote+for+the+Apache+Ignite+2.10.0+RC2&font=slab

Re: IGNITE-2399 : Asynchronous Acquire method in IgniteSemaphore

2021-03-10 Thread Atri Sharma

Hi Val,

Thanks for taking a look. I have updated the PR, please see and let me
know your thoughts and feedback.

Regards,

Atri

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 6:16 AM Valentin Kulichenko
 wrote:
>
> Atri,
>
> I've added my comments to the PR.
>
> -Val
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 2:44 AM Atri Sharma  wrote:
>
> > I have just updated the PR:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8820
> >
> > Please review.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 1:51 PM Atri Sharma  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Val,
> > >
> > > Thank you for taking the time on this one.
> > >
> > > The main reason as to why I chose that signature was because I felt it
> > > gave a clear idea of the interface that the user should expect when
> > > using the method. So essentially, the user is providing a callback
> > > listener himself/herself and the API is just using that to tie the
> > > lifecycle of holding the semaphore.
> > >
> > > However, I do see your point and feel that the current signature that
> > > the PR has will limit the usability of the method and make users jump
> > > through more hoops. I have changed the signature to accept Callable
> > > returning T.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Atri
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 5:29 AM Valentin Kulichenko
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Atri,
> > > >
> > > > First and foremost, we need to clarify the API for this functionality.
> > > > There are two options presented in the ticket, but no clear decision
> > about
> > > > which one should be used. I personally think that the original
> > signature
> > > > (the one in the ticket description) makes more sense, but it looks like
> > > > you've implemented an alternative suggested in the comments. What was
> > your
> > > > motivation behind that?
> > > >
> > > > As for where the method can be located, I'm OK if we add it directly
> > to the
> > > > IgniteSemaphore interface.
> > > >
> > > > -Val
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 8:22 AM Atri Sharma  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Gentle ping
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2021, 13:51 Atri Sharma,  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to start a discussion around IGNITE-2399.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Background: The typical use of IgniteSemaphore consists of
> > acquiring
> > > > > > the semaphore, performing the task and releasing the semaphore.
> > This
> > > > > > JIRA proposes a new method which will accept a callable, acquire
> > the
> > > > > > semaphore, and return a future. Upon completion of the future, the
> > > > > > semaphore is released.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This API seems useful for an easy encapsulation of the described
> > use
> > > > > > case and does not cause an internal flux since all the changes are
> > > > > > focused at the public API.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WIP PR for the same:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8820
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please share your thoughts and comments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Atri
> > > > > > Apache Concerted
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Atri
> > > Apache Concerted
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Atri
> > Apache Concerted
> >

-- 
Regards,

Atri
Apache Concerted

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14302) Generated configuration classes break PMD suite in REST module

2021-03-10 Thread Ivan Bessonov (Jira)

Ivan Bessonov created IGNITE-14302:
--

 Summary: Generated configuration classes break PMD suite in REST 
module
 Key: IGNITE-14302
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14302
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Sub-task
Reporter: Ivan Bessonov
Assignee: Ivan Bessonov


https://ci.ignite.apache.org/buildConfiguration/ignite3_Tests_SanityChecks_Pmd?branch=pull%2F65&buildTypeTab=overview&mode=builds#all-projects



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14303) H2Cursor doesn't match to contract of the GridCursor.

2021-03-10 Thread Maksim Timonin (Jira)

Maksim Timonin created IGNITE-14303:
---

 Summary: H2Cursor doesn't match to contract of the GridCursor.
 Key: IGNITE-14303
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14303
 Project: Ignite
  Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: Maksim Timonin
Assignee: Maksim Timonin


Queries like "select max(col) from table" relies on behavior of H2Cursor that 
differs to GridCursor:
 # It is not "first before". So H2 invoke cursor.get() first, without 
cursor.next().
 # Then for empty cursor it doesn't expect exception for get. It checks the 
return value for NULL.

Currently we can't do smth with that as this logic is implemented within H2. 
But Calcite should handle that.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

Re: IGNITE-2399 : Asynchronous Acquire method in IgniteSemaphore

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14295) Message interface to be introduced

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14296) Classe

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14297) API to unregister HandlerProvider from network module

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14298) DEVNOTES should contain clear instructions on how to run check-style.

Re: IGNITE-2399 : Asynchronous Acquire method in IgniteSemaphore

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14299) .Net Service loses array type information in case .Net <-> .Net call

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14300) Rebalance speed as part of test result data

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14301) Authentication processor can hang all user management operation after server node reconnect

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

Re: Re[2]: [DISCUSSION] Apache Ignite Release 2.10 (time, scope, manager)

Re: [DISCUSSION] IEP-69 The evolutionary release process

Re: IGNITE-2399 : Asynchronous Acquire method in IgniteSemaphore

[VOTE] Release Apache Ignite 2.10.0 RC2

Re: IGNITE-2399 : Asynchronous Acquire method in IgniteSemaphore

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14302) Generated configuration classes break PMD suite in REST module

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-14303) H2Cursor doesn't match to contract of the GridCursor.

25 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information