IGNITE-2092: upgrade java

Hi Igniters! I've investigated the ticket and found out that it can be fixed by updating java from 8u111 to 8u141 (current). Moreover, the image that is used in Dockerfile (FROM java:8) is deprecated and

Re: Future of Ignite transactions

Vova, Thanks for doing the research. The changes you are suggesting are a bit too bold, so let's discuss them in some more detail... On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Igniters, > > We are moving towards DBMS system. None of them has a notion of >

Re: IGNITE-5655: Mixing binary string encodings in Ignite cluster

I would agree with Andrey, it does look a bit over-architected to me. Why would anyone try to move data from one encoding to another? Is it a real use case that needs to be handled automatically? Here is what I think we should handle: 1. Ability to set cluster-wide encoding. This should be

Re: Ignite meetup in Moscow

Sure, done. — Denis > On Sep 3, 2017, at 7:47 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > Denis, > > Should we add this meetup to the website? > https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/ > > > D.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Urgent Ignite bug fix release

What’s the “new beta release process”? Haven’t seen anything like that on @dev? — Denis > On Sep 6, 2017, at 9:37 AM, Anton Vinogradov wrote: > > Denis, > > As you can remember, Cos told us that the only option to perform release is > to perform it in Apache way. >

[Meetup] Apache Spark and Ignite for IoT scenarious

Folks, Those who are craving for mind food this weekend come over the meetup - Santa Clara, Sept 9, 9.30 AM: https://www.meetup.com/datariders/events/242523245/?a=socialmedia — Denis

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6287) CREATE TABLE doesn't work from Web Console

Denis Magda created IGNITE-6287: --- Summary: CREATE TABLE doesn't work from Web Console Key: IGNITE-6287 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6287 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Bug

Re: Check Ignite build for different Java before VOTE

Dmitriy, Sorry, we had problem on Ignite TeamCity, I fixed it, now project available for all developers. Dmitry Pavlov wrote > Hi Aleksey, > > I think all types of release automation is very good for improving our > processes and provide stable product. > > Currently I am not able to view new

Re: Batch service deployment

I would agree on removing the partial deployment flag, but I do not like the all-or-nothing approach. I would still vote for the partial deployment support. Users should get an exception with services that failed and potentially retry them on their own. Let's keep the partial deployment semantic

Re: Batch service deployment

Guys, If service deployment *can* be easily rolled back - then we do not need the flag and should have strict semantics "all-or-nothing". Users do not need partial semantics. This is not ATOMIC cache, this is services. If service deployment *cannot* be rolled back - then we do not need the flag

Re: [DISCUSSION] Urgent Ignite bug fix release

Denis, As you can remember, Cos told us that the only option to perform release is to perform it in Apache way. So, we will be able once new release process beta will be ready. Also, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6193 was reopened and fix in progress now. On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2606: Ignite-6256-1.8.10

GitHub user AMashenkov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2606 Ignite-6256-1.8.10 for tests You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-6256-1.8.10 Alternatively you

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6286) incorrect 'setObject' call

Sergey Chernolyas created IGNITE-6286: - Summary: incorrect 'setObject' call Key: IGNITE-6286 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6286 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Bug

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2605: Ignite 6277

GitHub user EdShangGG opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2605 Ignite 6277 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-6277 Alternatively you can review and apply these

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2604: IGNITE-6193 ML profile is missing in 2.1 binary r...

GitHub user oignatenko opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2604 IGNITE-6193 ML profile is missing in 2.1 binary release - porting changes to standalone and lgpl pom files from regular one -- verified with diffs overview You can merge this pull request

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2603: IGNITE-6256: DiscoCache should always contains lo...

GitHub user AMashenkov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2603 IGNITE-6256: DiscoCache should always contains local node. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6285) Enhance persistent store paths logging on start

Yakov Zhdanov created IGNITE-6285: - Summary: Enhance persistent store paths logging on start Key: IGNITE-6285 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6285 Project: Ignite Issue

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2602: Ignite WAL reader dev tool and related changes

GitHub user dspavlov opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2602 Ignite WAL reader dev tool and related changes IGNITE-6235: Add ability to handle CacheObject from DataRecord in sta… IGNITE-6225: Improve tests of WAL iterator with checking DataRecord

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6284) Add IgniteCompute.withTaskNoResultCache() which should have similar effect as @ComputeTaskNoResultCache

Yakov Zhdanov created IGNITE-6284: - Summary: Add IgniteCompute.withTaskNoResultCache() which should have similar effect as @ComputeTaskNoResultCache Key: IGNITE-6284 URL:

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2510: IGNITE-6130 JDBC Thin: JdbcThinResultSet must sup...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2510 ---

Re: Batch service deployment

Dima, I agree with your reasoning. My outstanding question is why we have a flag? If we cannot rollback services, then what is the use of "boolean allOrNone"? Let's just remove it and always deploy services partially, throwing Exception with proper infromation about failed services. On Wed, Sep

Re: Batch service deployment

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn wrote: > Agree with Vova, partial deployment does not make much sense in deployAll > method. > Partial deployment can be performed with a deploy method in a loop. > That's exactly what we are trying to fix - deploy in a loop

Re: Batch service deployment

Agree with Vova, partial deployment does not make much sense in deployAll method. Partial deployment can be performed with a deploy method in a loop. On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Well, if we cannot rollback services easily then *why* we have a

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6283) Document ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN command

Vladimir Ozerov created IGNITE-6283: --- Summary: Document ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN command Key: IGNITE-6283 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6283 Project: Ignite Issue Type:

Re: Batch service deployment

Well, if we cannot rollback services easily then *why* we have a mode where we declare a kind of false "atomicity"? On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Well, if we cannot rollback services easily then when we have a mode where > we declare a kind of

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2344: IGNITE-5572

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2344 ---

Re: Batch service deployment

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > Dima, > > No, my point is to remove method with flag and never allow partial > deployment. I do not needsee any practical use cases for this. > The problem is not in practical use cases, but also in our ability to

Re: Batch service deployment

Dima, No, my point is to remove method with flag and never allow partial deployment. I do not needsee any practical use cases for this. On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Vova, makes sense. Couple of comments. > > >1. allowPartialUpdate ->

Re: Batch service deployment

Vova, makes sense. Couple of comments. 1. allowPartialUpdate -> allowPartialDeploy 2. I do not think we need the 2nd deployAll method. This is not the API where we need convenience shortcuts. 3. Partial deployment is a failure, not success, so the exception should be thrown.

Re: Batch service deployment

Igniters, Personally, I do not like the flag name - hard to understand and use. What if instead we define the following API: void deployAll(Collection cfgs, boolean allowPartialUpdate) throws ServiceDeploymentException void deployAll(Collection cfgs) throws ServiceDeploymentException The second

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6282) C++: impossible to start node with persistent store

Irina Zaporozhtseva created IGNITE-6282: --- Summary: C++: impossible to start node with persistent store Key: IGNITE-6282 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6282 Project: Ignite

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6281) Cluster Automatic Activation

Sergey Chugunov created IGNITE-6281: --- Summary: Cluster Automatic Activation Key: IGNITE-6281 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6281 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Improvement

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2112: IGNITE-5339: JDBC thin driver: validate complianc...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2112 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2601: IGNITE-6245: Implemented returning of the number ...

GitHub user isapego opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2601 IGNITE-6245: Implemented returning of the number of affected rows for ODBC driver. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2600: IGNITE-6193 ML profile is missing in 2.1 binary r...

GitHub user oignatenko opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2600 IGNITE-6193 ML profile is missing in 2.1 binary release You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2588: IGNITE-6253 .NET: Replace Doxygen with DocFX for ...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2588 ---

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2599: Ignite gg 12690

GitHub user dkarachentsev opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2599 Ignite gg 12690 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/gridgain/apache-ignite ignite-gg-12690 Alternatively you can review and

Re: New API docs look for Ignite.NET

Looks like everyone is ok with this. I'm going to merge these changes to master. Doxygen-related stuff remains there for now just in case, we have a separate ticket to remove it: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6267 On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Vladimir Ozerov

Re: Check Ignite build for different Java before VOTE

Hi Aleksey, I think all types of release automation is very good for improving our processes and provide stable product. Currently I am not able to view new Run configs: You do not have enough permissions to access build type with id: IgniteRelease_427CheckBuildIgniteFabricOpenJDK8 What should

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6280) Cassandra ignores AffinityKeyMapped annotation in parent classes.

Andrew Mashenkov created IGNITE-6280: Summary: Cassandra ignores AffinityKeyMapped annotation in parent classes. Key: IGNITE-6280 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6280 Project:

Re: Check Ignite build for different Java before VOTE

FYI: I founded some issues with build failed in our JIRA: 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2149 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4721 -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/

Check Ignite build for different Java before VOTE

Igniters, In Ignite DEVNOTES we have full instruction how we can build Ignite, but we have a lot of different options with which Ignite can be builded: 1. Ignite Fabric without Scala modules 2. Ignite Fabric with Scala modules 3. Ignite Fabric LGPL without Scala 4. Ignite Fabric LGPL with

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2598: IGNITE-6279 .NET: Decouple AbstractQueryCursor fr...

GitHub user ptupitsyn opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2598 IGNITE-6279 .NET: Decouple AbstractQueryCursor from PlatformTarget data exchange specifics You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6279) .NET: Decouple AbstractQueryCursor from PlatformTarget data exchange specifics

Pavel Tupitsyn created IGNITE-6279: -- Summary: .NET: Decouple AbstractQueryCursor from PlatformTarget data exchange specifics Key: IGNITE-6279 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6279

Future of Ignite transactions

Igniters, We are moving towards DBMS system. None of them has a notion of OPTIMISTIC/PESSIMISTIC transactions. Instead, they work as follows: 1) Reads (SELECT) do not acquire exclusive row locks 2) Exclusive lock on read could be forced explicitly (SELECT ... FOR UPDATE) 3) Writes do acuire

Re: Yardstick framework for Ignite 2.1

Ok. Jira issue for deleting benchmarks code for Ignite 1.9 from separate repo https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6227 Ticket for adding page about benchmarking https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6278 06.09.2017, 12:18, "Anton Vinogradov" : >

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6278) Add benchmarking page to readme.io

Aleksei Zaitsev created IGNITE-6278: --- Summary: Add benchmarking page to readme.io Key: IGNITE-6278 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6278 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Wish

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2597: IGNITE-6271 .NET: Propagate ServiceDeploymentExce...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2597 ---

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6277) Convert WAL to human readable form

Eduard Shangareev created IGNITE-6277: - Summary: Convert WAL to human readable form Key: IGNITE-6277 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6277 Project: Ignite Issue Type:

Re: Yardstick framework for Ignite 2.1

Aleksei, 1) Seems Ignite 1.x have it's own benchmarks (eg. https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-1.9/modules/benchmarks) So, let's do as Dmitriy proposed. I'll merge your changes. 2) Please create issue to add Benchmarking page to site or readme.io On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Dmitriy

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2597: IGNITE-6271 .NET: Propagate ServiceDeploymentExce...

GitHub user ptupitsyn opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2597 IGNITE-6271 .NET: Propagate ServiceDeploymentException You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/ptupitsyn/ignite ignite-6271

[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-6275) SQL: Get rid of IGNITE_SQL_MERGE_TABLE_MAX_SIZE system property

Vladimir Ozerov created IGNITE-6275: --- Summary: SQL: Get rid of IGNITE_SQL_MERGE_TABLE_MAX_SIZE system property Key: IGNITE-6275 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6275 Project:

Re: New API docs look for Ignite.NET

Looks good to me. Clean layout, fast build - do we need anything else? On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Oleg Ostanin wrote: > Great news, thanks a lot! > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn > wrote: > >> DocFX takes around 30 seconds

[GitHub] ignite pull request #2596: IGNITE-6179: fixed tests with client reconnect

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2596 ---

Re: IGNITE-5655: Mixing binary string encodings in Ignite cluster

What we tried to achieve is that several encoding could co-exist in a single cluster or even single cache. This would be great from UX perspective. However, from what Andrey wrote, I understand that this would be pretty hard to achieve as we rely heavily on similar binary representation of objects