Andrey and Yakov,
Thank you very much.
Lin.
Hi, all,
For a new cache without any data, I think CacheEvent with a put operation,
should not be hasOldValue() == true.
This is my test case to regenerate it.
public void testCacheEvent() throws Exception {
Ignite ignite = Ignition.start("examples/config/example-ignite.xml");
final
It seems that in this case eviction policy does not get notified properly
and most probably its internal queue differs from what is actually in
cache. Can anyone take a look?
--Yakov
2015-12-25 7:54 GMT+03:00 Lin :
> With printing code before last assertion, we can see the
Hi,
We've received a notification from you when you posted the message above.
So for now you have subscribed successfully.
--
Denis
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/can-i-install-ignite-on-windows-server-tp2316p2326.html
Sent from the Apache
Hi Yury,
There is no difference. As Valentin mentioned above you just need to provide
Visor with a configuration file where TcpDiscoverySpi contains an IP finder
with a list of address of the nodes from your grid.
If you take a look at example-ignite.xml you'll see that Visor will try to
find a
Lin,
thank you for your bug report. I created ticket
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2307 that describes your
situation.
For atomic cache internal queue of eviction policy contains all added
elements after removeAll invocation while it is empty for transactional
cache. So atomic
Hey guys,
I took some time to configure our project on OpenHub and we're now live
with analytics!
https://www.openhub.net/p/apache-ignite
Regards,
*Raúl Kripalani*
PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and
Messaging Engineer
http://about.me/raulkripalani |
Denis Magda wrote
> Hi,
>
> We've received a notification from you when you posted the message above.
>
> So for now you have subscribed successfully.
>
> --
> Denis
Hi Denis,
Thank you very much!
--
Tong
--
View this message in context: