Thanks, @Alex @Igor .
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 2:30 AM Igor Sapego wrote:
> Alex, this is great! I'll take a look.
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:35 AM Alex Plehanov
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Shane,
> >
> > It's safe to share one java thin client between threads.
> > The cl
My next question is why do we need adding java.transaction module
explicitly for Java 9 and 10? As I see since 11 version there is no
such module and classes from it in modules bundled with JDK. So, I
suppose either we do not need java.transaction module or something
does not work with Java 11. It
-f05415c0,
consistentId=persistence.IgnitePdsTxHistoricalRebalancingTest0, addrs=Arra
yList [127.0.0.1], sockAddrs=HashSet [/127.0.0.1:47500], discPort=47500,
order=1, intOrder=1, lastExchangeTime=1561110643882, loc=false,
ver=2.8.0#20190621-sha1:, isClient=false], topVer=7, nodeId8
Hello!
I don't think JDBC pool size has any bearing on this.
Regards,
ср, 12 июн. 2019 г., 20:13 Shane Duan :
> Thanks, Ilya. Yes, I am planning to bump up the heap size in our testing.
>
> Just curious, is it possible to fail the query/request, instead of crash
> Ignite instance with a system
Alex, this is great! I'll take a look.
Best Regards,
Igor
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:35 AM Alex Plehanov
wrote:
> Hello Shane,
>
> It's safe to share one java thin client between threads.
> The client in current implementation uses an exclusive lock on the
> connection while sending request an
+1 for moving to a separate branch from the master
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:54 AM Nikita Amelchev wrote:
>
> +1
>
> чт, 20 июн. 2019 г. в 11:28, Anton Vinogradov :
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:08 AM Dmitriy Pavlov wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > чт, 20 июн. 2019 г. в
Dmitry,
As a Python thin client developer, I think that separate repository is
a truly great idea!
On Tue, 2019-06-18 at 21:29 +0300, Dmitriy Pavlov wrote:
> - Move to separate repositories: thin clients (at least non-Java
>
> > ones)
Hello Shane,
It's safe to share one java thin client between threads.
The client in current implementation uses an exclusive lock on the
connection while sending request and processing response. But in a high
loaded application, using one client will give smaller throughput than
using a connection
Hello Igniters,
I'd like to add my ¢2 considering Python thin client.
I think we should abandon Python 3.4, which was a precondition from
Ignite community when I started to work on `pyignite` a good year ago,
and update the minimum requirement to at least Python 3.6, or, better
yet, 3.7.
Reasons
