Nikolay, Ivan,
Thank you guys! I knew that I should not worry =)
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin
ср, 5 февр. 2020 г. в 13:46, Ivan Rakov :
>
> Ivan,
>
> Thanks for pointing this out. Less than one day is indeed too early to
> treat this discussion thread as a "community conclusion". Still, the
> co
Ivan,
Thanks for pointing this out. Less than one day is indeed too early to
treat this discussion thread as a "community conclusion". Still, the
consensus among the current participants made me feel that a conclusion
will be reached.
We'll surely get back to the discussion if opposite opinions wi
Ivan.
It seems we don’t have a format definition for a «community decision»
We, for sure, should fill this gap.
Me and Andrey Gura, have certain proposals for our development process based on
metrics API discussion.
We will share those proposals after 2.8 release and some additional discussion.
Folks,
A bit of offtop. Do we have some recommendations in the community how
long should we wait until treating something as "a Community
conclusion"? It worries me a little bit that I see a discussion for a
first time and there is already a conclusion. And the discussion was
started lesser than 2
Folks,
Thanks for your feedback.
I've created a JIRA issue on this change:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12622
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:43 PM Denis Magda wrote:
> +1 from my end. It doesn't sound like a big deal if Ignite users need to
> define separate groups for atomic and tra
+1 from my end. It doesn't sound like a big deal if Ignite users need to
define separate groups for atomic and transactional caches.
-
Denis
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:28 AM Ivan Rakov wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> Apparently it's possible in Ignite to configure a cache group with both
> ATOMIC and TRA
+1 to avoid mixed tx-atomic cache groups.
On the other side, doing atomic ops inside a tx have no relation to
described reasons and is acceptable for me.
вт, 4 февр. 2020 г. в 14:40, Alexey Goncharuk :
> I support this change. While this has no much difference on the storage
> level, the protoco
Hello,
I absolutely agree with the proposed restriction. Additionally, this fact
should be clearly stated on the documentation page related to cache groups
https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/cache-groups
Thanks,
S.
вт, 4 февр. 2020 г. в 14:40, Alexey Goncharuk :
> I support this change. While
I support this change. While this has no much difference on the storage
level, the protocols are indeed are very different and thus should be
separated.
вт, 4 февр. 2020 г. в 14:36, Anton Vinogradov :
> Seems, we already started the separation by atomic operations restriction
> inside the transac
Anton,
Indeed, that's +1 point for forbidding mixed configurations.
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:36 PM Anton Vinogradov wrote:
> Seems, we already started the separation by atomic operations restriction
> inside the transactions [1].
> See no reason to allow mixes in this case.
>
> [1] https://issu
Seems, we already started the separation by atomic operations restriction
inside the transactions [1].
See no reason to allow mixes in this case.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2313
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:28 PM Ivan Rakov wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> Apparently it's possible in Ig
11 matches
Mail list logo
