Re: Review Request: IGNITE-8635: Add a Method to Inspect BinaryObject Size

Gentle ping On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 2:56 PM, Atri Sharma wrote: > Hi All, > > I have raised a PR for the above mentioned issue. Please see and help > review: > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8868 > > Regards, > > Atri > > -- > Regards, > > Atri > Apache Concerted > -- Regards, Atri Apa

Re: Review Request

Atri, I've added my comments in the PR. -Val On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:29 AM Denis Magda wrote: > @Valentin Kulichenko , @Nikolay Izhikov > , @samvi...@yandex.ru , > > I saw you reviewing the ticket. Could you please double-check the changes? > "IGNITE-2399: Implement acquireAndExecute In Ignit

Re: Review Request

@Valentin Kulichenko , @Nikolay Izhikov , @samvi...@yandex.ru , I saw you reviewing the ticket. Could you please double-check the changes? "IGNITE-2399: Implement acquireAndExecute In IgniteSemaphore" Atri, please put a ticket number and name in the title of an email, so that community member ca

Re: [REVIEW REQUEST] IEP-47 Native Persistence Defragmentation, core logic

But maybe I just don't know the date. To be short - right now defragmentation is my first priority. вт, 17 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:18, Ivan Bessonov : > Denis, > > chances that feature will be fully complete is a bit low. We still make > adjustments to the API > and we need a few optimizations so that

Re: [REVIEW REQUEST] IEP-47 Native Persistence Defragmentation, core logic

Denis, chances that feature will be fully complete is a bit low. We still make adjustments to the API and we need a few optimizations so that it would work faster. чт, 12 нояб. 2020 г. в 19:11, Denis Magda : > Ivan, > > Nice! Is the plan to get it added to Ignite 2.10? > > - > Denis > > > On Thu

Re: [REVIEW REQUEST] IEP-47 Native Persistence Defragmentation, core logic

Ivan, Nice! Is the plan to get it added to Ignite 2.10? - Denis On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 7:11 AM Ivan Bessonov wrote: > Hi Igniters, > > Core functionality of defragmentation is finally implemented in [1]. > There's no public API in it > for now, patch is already very big and had to be split i

Re: [REVIEW REQUEST] IGNITE-12630 Remove developers sections from parent pom.xml

Merged to master. Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin чт, 6 февр. 2020 г. в 11:57, Anton Vinogradov : > > Looks good to me. > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:45 AM Ivan Pavlukhin wrote: > > > Igniters, > > > > I raised a PR for a ticket [1] removing section from > > parent pom.xml. I described the motivat

Re: [REVIEW REQUEST] IGNITE-12630 Remove developers sections from parent pom.xml

Looks good to me. On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:45 AM Ivan Pavlukhin wrote: > Igniters, > > I raised a PR for a ticket [1] removing section from > parent pom.xml. I described the motivation in the ticket. Shortly, > this section has a little meaning today and even worse is misleading. > > Please re

Re: [REVIEW REQUEST] IGNITE-11951 Improvements in JdkMarshaller

Merged the patch to master [1]. Thank Alex Plekhanov for a review. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11951 ср, 10 июл. 2019 г. в 08:42, Павлухин Иван : > > Hi, > > I made some small improvements in JdkMarshaller [1]. I will be happy > if someone reviews it. Changes are quite simple

Re: Review request for IGNITE-8740: Support reuse of already initialized Ignite in IgniteSpringBean

Dmitry, Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed in master and 2.6. -Val On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:49 AM Dmitriy Govorukhin < dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Valentin, > > Seems that these changes have classes without license head. TC link >

Re: Review request for IGNITE-8740: Support reuse of already initialized Ignite in IgniteSpringBean

Valentin, Seems that these changes have classes without license head. TC link /data/teamcity/work/c182b70f2dfa6507/modules/spring/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/transact

Re: Review request for IGNITE-8740: Support reuse of already initialized Ignite in IgniteSpringBean

Great, thanks! As always, happy to contribute! Thanks, Amir On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:32 PM Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Amir, > > I merged you change to master and 2.6. Thanks! > > -Val > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 4:21 PM Amir Akhmedov > wrote: > >> Val, >> I

Re: Review request for IGNITE-8740: Support reuse of already initialized Ignite in IgniteSpringBean

Amir, I merged you change to master and 2.6. Thanks! -Val On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 4:21 PM Amir Akhmedov wrote: > Val, > I replied to it already :) > > Thanks, > Amir > > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:20 PM Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Amir, >> >> Thanks for

Re: Review request for IGNITE-8740: Support reuse of already initialized Ignite in IgniteSpringBean

Val, I replied to it already :) Thanks, Amir On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 7:20 PM Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Amir, > > Thanks for quick reaction. I added a follow up question in the ticket. > > -Val > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:48 PM Amir Akhmedov > wrote: > >> H

Re: Review request for IGNITE-8740: Support reuse of already initialized Ignite in IgniteSpringBean

Amir, Thanks for quick reaction. I added a follow up question in the ticket. -Val On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:48 PM Amir Akhmedov wrote: > Hi Val, > Thanks for your comments. I replied in the ticket with my vision of the > issue and how I tried to solve it. Please check it and let me know. > > T

Re: Review request for IGNITE-8740: Support reuse of already initialized Ignite in IgniteSpringBean

Hi Val, Thanks for your comments. I replied in the ticket with my vision of the issue and how I tried to solve it. Please check it and let me know. Thanks, Amir On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:42 PM Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Amir, > > I reviewed the changes and

Re: Review request for IGNITE-8740: Support reuse of already initialized Ignite in IgniteSpringBean

Hi Amir, I reviewed the changes and I'm not sure I understood how they fix they issue. I left more detailed comment in the ticket, can you please clarify? -Val On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 9:53 AM Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > Hi Amir, > > let me say sincere thank you for continuing to contribute. > > Bum

Re: Review request for IGNITE-8740: Support reuse of already initialized Ignite in IgniteSpringBean

Hi Amir, let me say sincere thank you for continuing to contribute. Bumping up this thread. Igniters, who has an expertise here? вс, 17 июн. 2018 г. в 17:59, Amir Akhmedov : > Hi All, > Can you please review my changes for IGNITE-8740. > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4208 > TC:

Re: Review request for IGNITE-8534 Upgrade Ignite Spark Module's Spark version to 2.3.

Before spark 2.3, spark is compiled using scala 2.11 and 2.10 separately. Spark-2.10 module in Ignite exists to accommodate this, it's not used anywhere else in project. Now spark 2.3 decided to remove support for scala 2.10, so we can safely remove spark-2.10 module in Ignite. It won't affect vis

Re: Review request for IGNITE-8534 Upgrade Ignite Spark Module's Spark version to 2.3.

Ray, could you share details of your investigation regarding spark-2.10 module removal? Is it not used anywhere that it can be safely removed? And what about visor-console-2.10 and scala-2.10 modules? > On 30 May 2018, at 08:41, Ray wrote: > > Hi Dmitriy, > > Thanks for the reply. > > I ha

Re: Review request for IGNITE-8534 Upgrade Ignite Spark Module's Spark version to 2.3.

Hi Dmitriy, Thanks for the reply. I have resolved conflicts in PR and changed the ticket status to path available. Please review and leave comments. Thanks -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/

Re: Review request for IGNITE-8534 Upgrade Ignite Spark Module's Spark version to 2.3.

Hi Ray, Could you also please resolve conflicts in PR? Conflicting files modules/spark-2.10/pom.xml вт, 29 мая 2018 г. в 18:19, Dmitry Pavlov : > Hi Ray, > > Status of this ticket is In Progress, so it is not displayed in filters. > > Could you please set status to Patch Available if PR is read

Re: Review request for IGNITE-8534 Upgrade Ignite Spark Module's Spark version to 2.3.

Hi Ray, Status of this ticket is In Progress, so it is not displayed in filters. Could you please set status to Patch Available if PR is ready for review? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пн, 28 мая 2018 г. в 8:40, Ray : > Valentin Kulichenko and Nikolay Izhikov can you please take a look at PR > and

Re: Review request

I think we should not allocate list at all! We can just add listener to added futures!:) and the semantics will be preserved! However this will not work if we want to iterate over the added ones. Number of unfinished futures will be still available through listener calls count. Let me review. If

Re: Review request

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > As per cache - I hardly understand affected logic, so my review wouldn't > help much here. > > As per the rest changes - looks good for me. I also see garbage from NIO > and "force keys" as huge memory hotspots. The only problem is > GridCo

Re: Review request

As per cache - I hardly understand affected logic, so my review wouldn't help much here. As per the rest changes - looks good for me. I also see garbage from NIO and "force keys" as huge memory hotspots. The only problem is GridCompoundFuture: if (futs == null) futs = new ArrayList<>(); futs

Re: Review request

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > No visible changes to throughput and latency on our common configuration, > but allocation pressure reduced up to 20% in put-get benchmarks. > Nice! > > --Yakov > > 2016-02-01 20:02 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > Any preliminary perf

Re: Review request

No visible changes to throughput and latency on our common configuration, but allocation pressure reduced up to 20% in put-get benchmarks. --Yakov 2016-02-01 20:02 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > Any preliminary performance numbers? > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > > >

Re: Review request

Any preliminary performance numbers? On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > Vladimir Ozerov and Alex Goncharuk, can you please take a look at PR and > provide comments? Other reviewers are welcome, too! =) > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/422 > > I did some changes to de