[GitHub] ignite pull request #2263: IGNITE-5467 Exception in communication SPI can st...

Github user ezhuravl closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2263 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is e

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2242: Ignite 1.8.8 p1

Github user ezhuravl closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2242 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is e

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2323: Ignite 1.7.4 p2

Github user ezhuravl closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2323 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is e

Re: "not null" constraint support

> QueryEntity is already too complex > let's make it even more complex We already see that String-based approach is bad: * LinkedHashMap fields * Set keyFields * Map aliases Which should have been just QueryField { name, isKey, alias }. Let's learn from our mistakes and do constraints right. >

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5809) SQL: Add precision and scale support for table fields.

Andrew Mashenkov created IGNITE-5809: Summary: SQL: Add precision and scale support for table fields. Key: IGNITE-5809 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5809 Project: Ignite

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2338: IGNITE-5807 added new profile to fix artifacts si...

GitHub user oleg-ostanin opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2338 IGNITE-5807 added new profile to fix artifacts signing, edited DEVNOT… …ES.txt You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gridgain

Re: Changing public IgniteCompute API to improve changes in 5037 ticket

Val, > What is the use case for which current affinityRun/Call API doesn't work? It does not work for map/reduce. On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maxim, > > The issue is that it's currently assumed to support job mapping, but it > a

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5810) Implement configuration import to xml

Yakov Zhdanov created IGNITE-5810: - Summary: Implement configuration import to xml Key: IGNITE-5810 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5810 Project: Ignite Issue Type: New Feat

Re: Ignite internal events tracing

Alex, I like the idea very much, but I think we need to rethink the implementation approach to make it more generic. Passing parameter to each invocation seems dirty to me. Val, we already have this. Please see org.apache.ignite.internal.IgniteDiagnosticAware Dmitry, what you suggest will be pre

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5811) Detect java-level deadlock and act according to a policy configured.

Yakov Zhdanov created IGNITE-5811: - Summary: Detect java-level deadlock and act according to a policy configured. Key: IGNITE-5811 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5811 Project: Ignit

Re: Timeouts in atomic cache

Val, it seems you spotted and issue. Please file a ticket - I would suggest to remove the exceptions entirely as in my understanding timeout logic for atomic operation will bring additional overhead, but most of the time atomic operations are instant. From timeout perspective, what differs atomic o

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5812) Implement decorator to auto adjust dopdown width to parent

Dmitriy Shabalin created IGNITE-5812: Summary: Implement decorator to auto adjust dopdown width to parent Key: IGNITE-5812 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5812 Project: Ignite

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.1.0 RC3

This vote is closed. On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > Retracting this, found the KEYS (douh...). Still > > -1 (binding). The release isn't signed by the release manager. Someone else > key is used. > > - Checked the sha1 > - Successfully ran the build > - Checked the

[CANCEL] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.1.0 RC3

Officially cancelling the vote according to found sign issues. *Same *files will be signed again with correct signature and proposed at new vote.

Re: IGNITE-5123 Review

Evgeniy and Dmitry, thanks for the fix! Merged into master. Thanks! On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > Hi Evgeniy, > > From my point of view there are no problems with this fix. My testing > didn't show any issues with fix. > > Igniters, > > Are there any additional comment

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5813) Inconsistent cache store state when originating node fails on commit.

Andrew Mashenkov created IGNITE-5813: Summary: Inconsistent cache store state when originating node fails on commit. Key: IGNITE-5813 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5813 Project

Re: Ignite internal events tracing

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > Alex, I like the idea very much, but I think we need to rethink the > implementation approach to make it more generic. Passing parameter to each > invocation seems dirty to me. > > Val, we already have this. Please > see org.apache.ignite.i

Re: IGNITE-5123 Review

Thank you! Many thanks to Dmitry for his attitude and dedication! On 24.07.2017 16:47, Semyon Boikov wrote: Evgeniy and Dmitry, thanks for the fix! Merged into master. Thanks! On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: Hi Evgeniy, From my point of view there are no problems wi

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2285: IGNITE-5123

Github user YevIgn closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2285 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is ena

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2339: Ignite 4181 public api

GitHub user andrey-kuznetsov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2339 Ignite 4181 public api You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/andrey-kuznetsov/ignite ignite-4181-public-api Alternatively y

[VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.1.0 RC4

Igniters, This vote based on same files as RC3. Only one change is that I signed zips with my signature. KEYS files (https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/ignite/KEYS) was updated as well. We already got 5 "+1" at RC3, so, is there any reason to wait 72 hours? This vote will go for 72 hours

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.1.0 RC4

Anton, You should treat this vote as a brand new vote. According to Apache rules, you need 3 +1 votes and it has to go for 72 hours. D. On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > Igniters, > > This vote based on same files as RC3. > Only one change is that I signed zips with my

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5814) Service deploy fails with NPE if it implements ExecutorService interface

Evgenii Zhuravlev created IGNITE-5814: - Summary: Service deploy fails with NPE if it implements ExecutorService interface Key: IGNITE-5814 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5814 Pr

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5815) Web Console: Improve Zero Configuration Politics

Vica Abramova created IGNITE-5815: - Summary: Web Console: Improve Zero Configuration Politics Key: IGNITE-5815 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5815 Project: Ignite Issue Typ

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5816) Race in WAL segment leading to ClosedChannelException

Alexey Goncharuk created IGNITE-5816: Summary: Race in WAL segment leading to ClosedChannelException Key: IGNITE-5816 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5816 Project: Ignite

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5817) Changing checksum calculation methods

Oleg Ostanin created IGNITE-5817: Summary: Changing checksum calculation methods Key: IGNITE-5817 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5817 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Bug

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5818) SQL: query with condition on affinity column works incorrect in some cases.

Andrew Mashenkov created IGNITE-5818: Summary: SQL: query with condition on affinity column works incorrect in some cases. Key: IGNITE-5818 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5818 P

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-5819) SQL: add support for TRUNCATE TABLE command.

Andrew Mashenkov created IGNITE-5819: Summary: SQL: add support for TRUNCATE TABLE command. Key: IGNITE-5819 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5819 Project: Ignite Issue T

Re: It seems WebSession's removeAttribute does not support HttpSessionBindingListener

Hi Val, I've registered two listeners with the WebSession cache and also the binary cache. When a session expires, the corresponding listeners will be invoked. https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2243/files Any comments? Thanks. Yuci -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-de

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.1.0 RC3

Hi Cos, > Which tells me that the private key is simply shared by a number of the > committers. And there's no guarantee that it hasn't been leaked outside of > the group. And that's pretty serious security flaw, actually. That’s not the case. Sam signed and did final technical steps preparing

Re: Cache Metrics

Guys, What if we calculate it on both sides? The client will keep the total time needed to complete an operation including network hoops while a server (primary or backup) will count only local time. — Denis > On Jul 17, 2017, at 7:07 AM, Andrey Gura wrote: > > Hi, > > I believe that the fi

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.1.0 RC3

Got it. Thank you for the understanding and readiness to deal with the finding - that might not look like a big issues for us, but could alert some of the users. I will be happy to jump on another verification cycle as soon as it is available. Please let me know if I can help with anything. With b

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.1.0 RC3

Cos, I’ll highly appreciate if you double-check that RC4 is clean and no longer have any issues revealed by you: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-Ignite-2-1-0-RC4-td19969.html

Re: Changing public IgniteCompute API to improve changes in 5037 ticket

Anton, You can call affinityCallAsync multiple times and then reduce locally. -Val On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > Val, > > > What is the use case for which current affinityRun/Call API doesn't work? > It does not work for map/reduce. > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:4

Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 2.1.0 RC4

+1 (binding) On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Anton, > > You should treat this vote as a brand new vote. According to Apache rules, > you need 3 +1 votes and it has to go for 72 hours. > > D. > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > > Igniters,

Re: Ignite internal events tracing

Yakov, How IgniteDiagnosticAware can be used? Is there any information? -Val On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote: > Alex, I like the idea very much, but I think we need to rethink the > implementation approach to make it more generic. Passing parameter to each > invocation see

Re: It seems WebSession's removeAttribute does not support HttpSessionBindingListener

Hi Yuci, I will review your changes this week. -Val On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:12 AM, yucigou wrote: > Hi Val, I've registered two listeners with the WebSession cache and also > the > binary cache. When a session expires, the corresponding listeners will be > invoked. > > https://github.com/apa

Re: Timeouts in atomic cache

Yakov, Thanks for response. I definitely like the idea of detecting Java level deadlocks. As for hangs caused by Ignite internal problems, do we have a ticket for this as well? Do you have any idea about how this should be implemented? -Val On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:

Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

Guys, Some time ago we removed FairAffinityFunction from the project. However, my communication with users clearly shows that is was a rush decision. Distribution showed by Fair AF is much better than default and for some users it's extremely important. Basically, there are cases when rendezvous f

Re: Resurrect FairAffinityFunction

Agree with Val, we should bring it back. ⁣D.​ On Jul 24, 2017, 8:14 PM, at 8:14 PM, Valentin Kulichenko wrote: >Guys, > >Some time ago we removed FairAffinityFunction from the project. >However, my >communication with users clearly shows that is was a rush decision. >Distribution showed by Fair