Re: Missing Gitbox activation email

I think the key is exactly what Dan pointed out about accepting the Apache org invite on GitHub. If you hadn’t done that previously you must do it now. You must have any and all GitHub IDs you plan to use as committer registered with Apache. You should also have any and all email addresses you

Re: Missing Gitbox activation email

When geode-native moved I don't think we received an activation email... just had to follow the instructions Jake sent out: (obviously drop the "-native") For committers the origin is now github.com/apache/geode-native. Before you can get write access to the new repo you need to "link" your

Re: Stored procedures on Apache Geode.

Hi Marios- Comments below... On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:32 AM, marios390 < marios.sofocle...@creditsafe.com> wrote: > Hi John, > > I am confused a little bit about the different ways of setting up geode > cluster and deploying it in CF. > In short: > > * If we choose gemfire we can easily

Failed: apache/geode#3785 (dummy-branch - 1b8ef66)

Build Update for apache/geode - Build: #3785 Status: Failed Duration: 22 minutes and 45 seconds Commit: 1b8ef66 (dummy-branch) Author: Jianxia Chen Message: test asf github View the changeset: https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/1b8ef66d2a34 View the full

Re: [Discuss] Use of -1 as Infinite/All for retry related functions...

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:37 PM Mark Hanson wrote: > C# a very new > language has added the same -1 behavior, so obviously it does not cause > major problems. Can you cite references here? The major problem comes when dealing with units. When we change the time based

Re: [Discuss] Building objects with the Factory pattern or the Builder pattern. Adding the fluent model?

For me there is only one real challenge, not an objection as I like builder and fluent models as well, but there is an added challenge of debugging. it can effectively combine 5 lines into one, which means it is *slightly* more annoying to debug, and the fact that return values go away, but for a

Re: [Discuss] Use of -1 as Infinite/All for retry related functions...

To be sure, if we find particular API bad/unclear/misnamed, a change is always easy to justify. On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Mark Hanson wrote: > To play devil's advocate, > > I have dealt with -1 for years in network development among other places. > In just about every

Re: Missing Gitbox activation email

I did not get any email. But it seems all set for me. ​ On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote: > *I think the email takes some time to arrive."An organisational invite will > be sent to you via email shortly thereafter (within 30 minutes)."* > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017

Re: Missing Gitbox activation email

*I think the email takes some time to arrive."An organisational invite will be sent to you via email shortly thereafter (within 30 minutes)."* On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:21 PM Dan Smith wrote: > If you are stuck on 3rd step (MFA Status) make you have added your github >

Re: Missing Gitbox activation email

If you are stuck on 3rd step (MFA Status) make you have added your github username on id.apache.org *and* that you have accepted the invitation to join the apache group on github. You should see an apache feather listed underneath your organizations on github. -Dan On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:08

Re: Missing Gitbox activation email

I’d hit up Infra tomorrow if it isn’t working by then. > On Sep 6, 2017, at 4:06 PM, Jared Stewart wrote: > > I’m stuck on the same step. I tried clearing out my GitHub username at > id.apache.org and then re-adding it in the hopes of >

[CANCEL][VOTE] Apache Geode release - v1.2.1 RC1

Cancelling the vote on this release candidate due to concerns about breaking backwards compatibility in a patch release. Anthony > On Aug 25, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > This is the first release candidate for Apache Geode, version 1.2.1. > Thanks to all the

Re: Missing Gitbox activation email

I’m stuck on the same step. I tried clearing out my GitHub username at id.apache.org and then re-adding it in the hopes of re-triggering the email, but it still hasn’t arrived. - Jared > On Sep 6, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > > Hey there,

Missing Gitbox activation email

Hey there, I've gone through all the steps to activate my github user with gitbox. Looking at gitbox.apache.org, I was completed step 2 of 3. I'm currently waiting for the email that I'm supposed to receive, BUT it has never arrived. I have checked my Spam folder and it was not in there

[Spring CI] Spring Data GemFire > Nightly-ApacheGeode > #670 was SUCCESSFUL (with 2027 tests)

--- Spring Data GemFire > Nightly-ApacheGeode > #670 was successful. --- Scheduled 2029 tests in total. https://build.spring.io/browse/SGF-NAG-670/ -- This

Re: [Discuss] Use of -1 as Infinite/All for retry related functions...

Perfect! > On Sep 6, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote: > > And this is where the details are more useful than the abstract. I think if > we focus more on specific API methods and answer the questions for each or > those we will spend less time going back and forth on

Re: [Discuss] What type should C++ object creation functions return?

Sure. If we made these changes RegionFactory::create would change to: Region RegionFactory::create(const char*); Since Region has a deleted copy constructor, we would have to implement a move constructor and a move assignment operator. Region(const Region&& other); Region&

Build failed in Jenkins: Geode-nightly-flaky #114

See -- Started by upstream project "Geode-nightly" build number 946 originally caused by: Started by timer [EnvInject] - Loading node environment variables. Building remotely on H14

Build failed in Jenkins: Geode-nightly #946

See Changes: [gosullivan] GEODE-3385: Change GetAllRequest to return list of errors. [bschuchardt] GEODE-3514: Clean up locator and protobuf related code -- [...truncated

Re: [Discuss] Use of -1 as Infinite/All for retry related functions...

> On Sep 6, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote: > > Ok, I did not find that previous message at all clarifying but I did find > this one clarifying. I think the objective is to provide a clear and understandable API. IMO, a ReallyBigNumber is not easily readable. Is

Re: [Discuss] What type should C++ object creation functions return?

Great, can you provide some examples of what some of the APIs would look like if we made these changes? On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:29 PM David Kimura wrote: > Good point. In those cases, the copy constructor should have been deleted > to prevent the copy build up. For

Re: [Discuss] Use of -1 as Infinite/All for retry related functions...

Ok, I did not find that previous message at all clarifying but I did find this one clarifying. Yes, I believe the consensus is sentinel values like -1 and 0 should be eliminated. The value should carry a consistent meaning based on the unit of the value. If you think about it then there is really

Re: [Discuss] What type should C++ object creation functions return?

Good point. In those cases, the copy constructor should have been deleted to prevent the copy build up. For objects when copy constructor is deleted *and* compiler doesn't perform RVO, I think we'd likely need to add a move constructor. Thanks, David On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Jacob

Re: [Discuss] What type should C++ object creation functions return?

Bare object sounds nice to me. The caller has the option at that point to copy to heap into smart pointer or keep on stack. Mixed with the fluent/builder conversation in another thread this would simplify to: auto cache = CacheFactory().setSomething().create(); Which I think looks pretty darn

Re: [Discuss] Use of -1 as Infinite/All for retry related functions...

Hi, To clarify, the original email was to discuss the concept of overloading a number to mean infinity. The example cited was one where we were using -1 to mean all. While the example case was decided (remove the function), the basic question was not answered. I attempted in the previous

Re: [Discuss] Building objects with the Factory pattern or the Builder pattern. Adding the fluent model?

I really like the Fluent pattern as it is done in C# and Java... I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze in an existing c++ library. I do agree we should normalize our factory/builder patterns. On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote: > Mark, > > I

Review Request 62132: GEODE-3277: Fix error path constructors of Launcher inner State classess

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/62132/ --- Review request for geode, Jinmei Liao, Jared Stewart, Kirk Lund, and Patrick

Re: [Discuss] What type should C++ object creation functions return?

std::unique_ptr looks like a good option. then again if the typical usage is like so: cachePtr = CacheFactory::createCacheFactory(pp)->create(); it seems simple enough to just return the bare object EB On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:27 PM, David Kimura wrote: > What type

Re: [Discuss] What type should C++ object creation functions return?

I like just returning the object as that removes the possibility of a null pointer. Sarge > On 6 Sep, 2017, at 12:27, David Kimura wrote: > > What type should C++ object creation functions return (e.g. pointer, smart > pointer, reference, etc.)? Several of our C++ API's

Re: Review Request 62088: GEODE-3249 Validate internal client/server messages

Ah, I see. Makes sense. On Sep 6, 2017 12:23 PM, "Bruce Schuchardt" wrote: I think we will want to remove this property in the next major release and have the behavior it enables be how the servers always act. On 9/6/17 10:23 AM, Brian Baynes wrote: In this case, won't

Re: Review Request 62088: GEODE-3249 Validate internal client/server messages

I think we will want to remove this property in the next major release and have the behavior it enables be how the servers always act. On 9/6/17 10:23 AM, Brian Baynes wrote: In this case, won't we be changing the default of this property with the next major release?  So perhaps the choice is

Re: Review Request 61895: GEDOE-3516: TXManagerImpl.tryResume call may add itself again into the waiting thread queue

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61895/#review184710 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Nick Reich On Sept. 6, 2017, 6:42 p.m.,

Re: Review Request 61895: GEDOE-3516: TXManagerImpl.tryResume call may add itself again into the waiting thread queue

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61895/#review184709 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Darrel Schneider On Sept. 6, 2017,

Re: Review Request 61895: GEDOE-3516: TXManagerImpl.tryResume call may add itself again into the waiting thread queue

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61895/ --- (Updated Sept. 6, 2017, 6:42 p.m.) Review request for geode, anilkumar

Re: [Discuss] Building objects with the Factory pattern or the Builder pattern. Adding the fluent model?

Mark, I believe the real issue is that we use multiple patterns and should be converging on one pattern. We have examples of both Factory and Builder models and both with and without Fluent pattern. If the Java API is tending towards Builder model with Fluent pattern then I am for that as long

Re: [Discuss] Use of -1 as Infinite/All for retry related functions...

I really am not following what you are trying to say. I think too many side conversations have muddied this original thread. The question was about tries, lets keep focused on retries and not transition the conversation to timeouts. As it relates to retries the consensus was get rid of it

Re: [Discuss] Use of -1 as Infinite/All for retry related functions...

Just don't break existing users. Timeouts are tricky, and we have lots of users who have tuned them very carefully over the years. -- Mike Stolz Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Mark Hanson wrote: > So the

Re: [Discuss] Building objects with the Factory pattern or the Builder pattern. Adding the fluent model?

In the geode java apis you would create a CacheFactory (or ClientCacheFactory), configure it fluently, and then call create at the end. So even though we call them factories in the geode java apis, they use the Builder pattern and also support the fluent model in that you could do this:

Re: Review Request 62088: GEODE-3249 Validate internal client/server messages

In this case, won't we be changing the default of this property with the next major release? So perhaps the choice is to follow the default=false convention now, or with the next major release..? On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > > > > On Sept.

Re: [Discuss] Use of -1 as Infinite/All for retry related functions...

So the basic challenge here is for specific API, do we want to focus on providing a wait forever approach or just use the standard MAX_UNSIGNED and duration. I think that variable delay is something someone would implement in their own API and would not be done in the public API where consistency

[Discuss] Building objects with the Factory pattern or the Builder pattern. Adding the fluent model?

Problem: To fluent and builder model or not to fluent and builder model In the native client we use the factory model of generating objects, we are wondering if a move to the fluent model and the builder pattern would be better. Background: In designing the various types of allocators

Re: Need suggestion for exception expected but was

Please provide steps to reproduce this issue, or logs that can help us better diagnose the problem. > On Sep 6, 2017, at 9:48 AM, dinesh 1004 wrote: > > I am using geode 1.2 > > Thanks > Dinesh > > On 6 Sep 2017 20:51, "Anthony Baker" wrote: >

Re: fix geode-old-versions downloads with a clean build?

I submitted a PR to try to cache the old version somewhere else but people didn't like the approach I took so I closed it. If someone wants to take this up that would be great, I'm don't really have time to mess with it right now. https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/733 -Dan On Wed, Sep 6,

RE: [DISCUSS] Bug while parsing the JSON "key which having short data type" in locate command "https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/752"

Need suggestions on same pull request Thanks, Dinesh On 1 Sep 2017 09:46, "Dinesh Akhand" wrote: > Hi Team, > > Please reply over below mail chain. > > Need you focus on the issue. > > Thanks, > Dinesh Akhand > > -Original Message- > From: Dinesh Akhand > Sent:

Re: Need suggestion for exception expected but was

I am using geode 1.2 Thanks Dinesh On 6 Sep 2017 20:51, "Anthony Baker" wrote: > What version of Geode is this? Did you change the log4j version? > > Anthony > > > On Sep 6, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Dinesh Akhand wrote: > > > > java.lang.Exception: Unexpected

Re: fix geode-old-versions downloads with a clean build?

There was discussion about taking that out I am very hopeful that it happens. Thanks, Mark On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Galen O'Sullivan wrote: > Hi all, > > I like to run a `./gradlew clean build` when I'm pulling, reviewing, or > about to push a new build. It

Re: Review Request 62088: GEODE-3249 Validate internal client/server messages

> On Sept. 5, 2017, 5:09 p.m., Galen O'Sullivan wrote: > > I prefer config option names to be as unambiguous as possible. I think > > `allow` would be clearer than `disallow` because it avoids > > double-negatives. Can we use > > `allow-internal-messages-without-credentials` and have it

Re: Need suggestion for exception expected but was

What version of Geode is this? Did you change the log4j version? Anthony > On Sep 6, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Dinesh Akhand wrote: > > java.lang.Exception: Unexpected exception, > expected but > was > at >

Need suggestion for exception expected but was

java.lang.Exception: Unexpected exception, expected but was at org.apache.geode.internal.logging.LogService$PropertyChangeListenerImpl.propertyChange(LogService.java:279) at

Re: DISCUSS : Monitor the neighbour JVM using neihbour's member-timeout (GEODE-3411)

Are you intending to use server groups to divide the cluster into different logical groupings? Unless the groups host entirely separate data sets I could see an asymmetric response pattern depending if the primary was hosted on a member with a short / long timeout. Anthony > On Sep 6, 2017,

RE: DISCUSS : Monitor the neighbour JVM using neihbour's member-timeout (GEODE-3411)

Hi Udo, For your question: "If you feel that the member timeout is too short for some members, why don't you increase the current member timeout?" Yes, for some members I feel that member-timeout is short. I want to increase the timeout for some members. But that timeout is not being used to