Hi,
Is this latest sw grant planned to be a part of the new release that is now in 
discussion ?

Thanks,
Gal

-----Original Message-----
From: Ernest Burghardt [mailto:eburgha...@pivotal.io] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 17:18
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: C++ client change history

I don't believe so, best bet is to just treat this latest sw grant as where the 
community will start from on geode-native.



On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Avital Amity <avital.am...@amdocs.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Ernie,
>
> Is there a place I can find the defect list/feature list between the 
> first dump and the latest one?
>
> Thanks
> Avital
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ernest Burghardt [mailto:eburgha...@pivotal.io]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 5:02 PM
> To: dev@geode.apache.org
> Subject: Re: C++ client change history
>
> Avital,
> "first dump" == first grant of native client code, we advise you to 
> ignoring the initial grant and begin from the current offering.
>
> Best,
> Ernie
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > It's sent by all gemfire servers up to but not including 9.0. The 
> > client was never using the value it was reading. It doesn't bother
> reading it now.
> > It works with servers that do send the value and those that don't.
> >
> > You should really ignore the first dump and not try to consider 
> > resolving diffs between the two.
> >
> > -Jake
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:51 PM Avital Amity 
> > <avital.am...@amdocs.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jacob,
> > >
> > > Does the deprecated long in GEODE server 1.0 still exist in GF server?
> > > In what version was it removed from the server
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Avital
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jacob Barrett [mailto:jbarr...@pivotal.io]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 8:33 PM
> > > To: dev@geode.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: C++ client change history
> > >
> > > The change happened in a commercial release between grants. The 
> > > ping case had a deprecated long read that was not compatible with 
> > > the server Geode 1.0. After removing the read the code path was 
> > > merged with the default as there was no diff.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:06 AM Michael William Dodge <
> > mdo...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm not sure exactly what happened as my git fu isn't that great 
> > > > but could it be as part of commit 
> > > > 4fa64db926f51d4b12d6e4040c703cc69a9832fe? In that commit I see a 
> > > > block under case TcrMessage::PING: being removed so that 
> > > > execution falls through to default: but I'm unsure that I've 
> > > > pieced the output from git diff together properly so that may 
> > > > not be a change that happened in
> > > TcrMessage::handleByteArrayResponse.
> > > >
> > > > Sarge
> > > >
> > > > > On 12 Feb, 2017, at 09:25, Avital Amity 
> > > > > <avital.am...@amdocs.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm trying to track the history of TcrMessage.cpp but I can 
> > > > > find it only
> > > > in the new client release where it moved under cppcache/src
> > > > > In particular I'm searching for the change where in function
> > > > TcrMessage::handleByteArrayResponse
> > > > > Where the case of PING message was merged with the case of the 
> > > > > default
> > > > message
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Avital
> > > > > This message and the information contained herein is 
> > > > > proprietary and
> > > > confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
> > > > >
> > > > > you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp
> > > >
> > > >
> > > This message and the information contained herein is proprietary 
> > > and confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
> > >
> > > you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp
> > >
> >
> This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and 
> confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,
>
> you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp
>
This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and 
confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,

you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp

Reply via email to