Hi,
Could you please review the RFC for "Gateway sender to deliver transaction
events atomically to receivers"?
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Gw+sender+to+deliver+transaction+events+atomically+to+receivers
Deadline for comments is Wednesday, April 1st, 2020,
Thanks,
Albert
+1
YES.
Having a set of clean C headers also allows for using a broad set of code
generators for additional languages (Swig, for example).
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 2:20 PM Blake Bender wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> We'd like to add C bindings to the native client, in preparation for the
> large
+1
Great idea! Hey, it's also easy to call into C libraries from Java - maybe
we can write a java client ;)
It would be nice to see a little bit more detail about the actual API, like
what does a region put look like?
-Dan
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 8:25 AM Robert Houghton
wrote:
> +1
> YES.
>
>
This is a request for permission to edit the Apache Geode Wiki using my
Apache credentials:
Username: boglesby
Email: bogle...@apache.org
Thanks,
Barry Oglesby
+1
Would certainly be nice since the protobuf work is still mostly
experimental (and then I can continue my goal of Geode-ing all the
languages)
-michael
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 9:03 AM Dan Smith wrote:
> +1
>
> Great idea! Hey, it's also easy to call into C libraries from Java - maybe
> we c
Hi Barry,
You should have access now.
-Dan
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:23 AM Barry Oglesby wrote:
> This is a request for permission to edit the Apache Geode Wiki using my
> Apache credentials:
>
> Username: boglesby
> Email: bogle...@apache.org
>
> Thanks,
> Barry Oglesby
>
Hello Geode Dev Community,
This is a release candidate for Apache Geode version 1.12.0.RC1.
Thanks to all the community members for their contributions to this release!
Please do a review and give your feedback, including the checks you
performed.
Voting deadline:
3PM PST Mon, March 30 2020.
Pl
+1
I think this a good improvement to the way transactions behave with WAN! I
had a couple of more detailed comments I put on the doc.
Thanks,
-Dan
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 8:05 AM Alberto Gomez
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could you please review the RFC for "Gateway sender to deliver transaction
> events
Hi there Alberto,
It's a "-1" from me.
I have raised my concerns in the RFC comments. To summarize, whilst I
like the idea (I had never thought of that problem you are trying to
solve), I don't know how this will behave at scale. Just looking at some
of the comments, I think it is safe to say
Build Update for apache/geode-examples
-
Build: #407
Status: Passed
Duration: 25 mins and 59 secs
Commit: bd18a64 (release/1.12.0)
Author: Ernie Burghardt
Message: temporarily point to staging repo for CI purposes
View the changeset:
https://github.com/apache
Build Update for apache/geode-examples
-
Build: #408
Status: Errored
Duration: 1 min and 8 secs
Commit: 05c41c7 (rel/v1.12.0.RC1)
Author: Ernie Burghardt
Message: Bumping version to 1.12.0
View the changeset:
https://github.com/apache/geode-examples/compare/r
Hi,
I have modified the RFC to include the alternative suggested by Bruce. Im also
extending the deadline for sending comments to next Friday 27th March EOB.
Thanks!
BR/
Alberto B.
De: Bruce Schuchardt
Enviado: lunes, 23 de marzo de 2020 22:38
Para: Alberto Bu
I put some comments on the proposal on the wiki.
btw what are we voting on? Just curious as I wasn't sure if we were voting
for the current proposal or whether we should continue this discussion?
I like the idea of having transactional ops be sent together in a batch if
possible and it would be
My vote was to implement said solution.
But it is a HUGE +1 to continue the discussion to resolve the issue
identified!
--Udo
On 3/25/20 4:14 PM, Jason Huynh wrote:
I put some comments on the proposal on the wiki.
btw what are we voting on? Just curious as I wasn't sure if we were voting
f
> btw what are we voting on? Just curious as I wasn't sure if we were
voting
for the current proposal or whether we should continue this discussion?
Sorry, just +1'd because I like the idea, not to imply we're voting on
anything. I thought that's a general apache convention during a discussion.
geode-assembly-1.12.0.zip does not appear to have any signature files
associated with it. It also looks like it just contains a Dockerfile - is
this actually an artifact we want to distribute?
-Dan
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 2:12 PM Ernest Burghardt
wrote:
> Hello Geode Dev Community,
>
> This is
Build Update for apache/geode-native
-
Build: #2350
Status: Passed
Duration: 1 hr, 20 mins, and 26 secs
Commit: 8ddc0e8 (rel/v1.12.0.RC1)
Author: Blake Bender
Message: GEODE-7694: fix pdx type lookup (#572)
- < operator should have used typeId, was using class
My vote is non-binding, but I’m a -1 for this RC1. Reasons:
i) The geode-examples release branch appears to have been branched from master,
rather than develop (that's why there are still .zip artifacts). Also, I see
at least 3 PRs against examples that were mistakenly merged to master instead
Build Update for apache/geode-examples
-
Build: #410
Status: Broken
Duration: 1 min and 32 secs
Commit: 0ed1eed (develop)
Author: Robert Houghton
Message: Add missing geode-lucene to dependency-substitution block
Authored-by: Robert Houghton
View the changes
19 matches
Mail list logo
