Yes, there are a lot of changes in ML from 2.7, I'm going to prepare new
documentation and create documentation related tickets for the ML
component.
After some consultation and review from Artem side I'll add new
documentation on readme.io.
чт, 20 февр. 2020 г. в 02:34, Denis Magda :
> Artem,
Hello folks,
Thanks a lot all of you! I really appreciate it.
Best regards,
Slava.
ср, 19 февр. 2020 г. в 21:32, Saikat Maitra :
> Congratulations!!!
>
> Regards
> Saikat
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 6:28 AM, Alexei Scherbakov <
> alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Congrats, keep up a go
Thank you, Andrey! Glad to hear from you! :)
Thanks,
S.
вт, 18 февр. 2020 г. в 23:33, Andrey Kuznetsov :
> Congratulations, Slava!
>
> вт, 18 февр. 2020 г. в 22:20, Dmitriy Pavlov :
>
> > Hello Ignite Community,
> >
> > The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache Ignite has invited
> > Vya
Hi Pavel,
> Don't let the bad code occupy master :)
I will do my best! :)
Thanks,
S.
ср, 19 февр. 2020 г. в 12:58, Pavel Kovalenko :
> Congratulations, Slava!
> Don't let the bad code occupy master :)
>
> вт, 18 февр. 2020 г. в 22:20, Dmitriy Pavlov :
>
> > Hello Ignite Community,
> >
> > The P
Hooray-hooray! ))) Thank you, Ivan!
BR,
S.
ср, 19 февр. 2020 г. в 08:38, Ivan Pavlukhin :
> Hooray!
>
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>
> ср, 19 февр. 2020 г. в 00:28, Dmitriy Govorukhin <
> dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > My congratulations, Slava!
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:33
Merged to master.
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin
пн, 17 февр. 2020 г. в 20:08, Ivan Pavlukhin :
>
> Ticket [1] is ready for review. Comments about deprecation statements
> and overall approach are highly appreciated.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12686
>
> Best regards,
> Iva
Thanks, Ilya!
> On 19 Feb 2020, at 15:26, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I have fixed these links, now they point to HTTPS. Please check that it
> would work now.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> ср, 19 февр. 2020 г. в 16:49, Denis Magda :
>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Would you mind
Maxim Muzafarov created IGNITE-12707:
Summary: Update release branch version for 2.8
Key: IGNITE-12707
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12707
Project: Ignite
Issue Type:
Igor Seliverstov created IGNITE-12708:
-
Summary: Calcite integration. Expressions factory base
implementation.
Key: IGNITE-12708
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12708
Project: Ig
Hello!
Since we have merged https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6804 we
have to face an embarrassing fact that BinaryObject is not Comparable,
i.e., when you do cache.withKeepBinary().putAll(), there are no obvious
ways to not get a deadlock (or at least warning) here.
One can use Linked
Hi, Igniters!
At present, a security subject id is assumed to be node id.
But when we are dealing with thin client, JDBC or REST subject id is random
UUID. In this case, we cannot get the subject information on a remote node,
and we get problems like these [1], [2].
To fix the problem, we shoul
Folks,
Can we not only mark `rebalanceDelay` and `rebalanceOrder` with
@deprecated annotation but also remove its support from the source
code? For instance, for the next 2.9 release. I see the next
advantages here:
1. It will greatly simplify the implementation of ExchageManager (It
also overco
Yes, I said about it at 07.19.
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Improvements-for-new-security-approach-td42698.html#a42708
And in my solution, I just transmitted security subjects for rest requests.
If you remove ATTR_SECURITY_SUBJECT_V2, it breaks compatibility between old
ve
Hello Maxim,
In general, we should not remove existing public APIs / properties until
the major version is released, even though the community has an agreement
that these properties are useless.
I fully support the idea that rebalanceOrder, rebalanceDelay, and
CacheRebalanceMode#NONE should be mar
Anton Kalashnikov created IGNITE-12709:
--
Summary: Server latch initialized after client latch in Zookeeper
discovery
Key: IGNITE-12709
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12709
Proj
> I just transmitted security subjects for rest requests.
SecurityContext has an unlimited size so we can get significant overhead.
And we do not solve problems with other thin clients.
>If you remove ATTR_SECURITY_SUBJECT_V2, it breaks compatibility between old
versions and new.
I suggest remov
Slava,
I don't know the right answer to this case, but I think what exactly
compatibility is important:
1. PDS compatibility
2. Messaging compatibility
3. Rolling upgrades
4. Compile application on newer 2.x version
Properties are not too important and we can remove unnecessary
functionality ref
Hello Maxim,
> Properties are not too important and we can remove unnecessary
> functionality reflecting them even, for 2.8 -> 2.9 releases for instance.
IMHO, we should preserve source, binary and behavioral compatibility.
Removing methods from public API may break all these requirements.
> As
Folks,
Is there anything else apart from the open documentation tickets that
prevent us from starting the release vote? I think that it should take
around two weeks to run the release through the vote and announce it. The
top doc changes should be finished throughout that time already.
-
Denis
Hi Ilya,
We can oblige users to implement Comparable if they use BinaryObject keys.
Ignite can print out a warning if BinaryObject keys passed to putAll
methods don't do that.
I also wonder how a similar task was solved for Ignite INSERTs. Our engine
should use BinaryObjects for compound primary
Sergey Antonov created IGNITE-12710:
---
Summary: Extension log in rebuild indexes to search problems
Key: IGNITE-12710
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12710
Project: Ignite
Hi, Pavel
This feature looks very interesting, can you add me as a reviewer please.
Or maybe I can contribute somehow?
Thanks,
Sergey.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 20:46, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote:
> Ilya, looks like there is a misunderstanding.
>
> We don't start near cache on a subset of server nodes.
Denis,
Currently, we have no blockers. I'm preparing the build.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 21:10, Denis Magda wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Is there anything else apart from the open documentation tickets that
> prevent us from starting the release vote? I think that it should take
> around two weeks to ru
23 matches
Mail list logo
