JIRA and Wiki permissions

Hi, Could you please grant me permissions to edit the wiki and assign JIRA tickets? My id is alberto.gomez Thanks! Alberto

Geode self-protection about overload

Hi Geode community! I'd like to know if Geode implements any kind of self-protection against overload. What I mean by this is some mechanism that allows Geode servers (and possibly locators) to reject incoming operations before processing them when it detects that it is not able to handle the a

Re: Geode self-protection about overload

, at 3:22 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote: Hi Geode community! I'd like to know if Geode implements any kind of self-protection against overload. What I mean by this is some mechanism that allows Geode servers (and possibly locators) to reject incoming operations before processing them when it d

Re: Geode self-protection about overload

gated by a read timeout) and thus slow down incoming operations. We’re looking into some improvements in the client connection pool to improve both performance and behaviors at the ragged edge when resources are saturated. Contributions welcome! Anthony On May 13, 2019, at 9:02 AM, Al

Re: Geode self-protection about overload

imeout for functions? How about being able to override this timeout on each function invocation by adding a setReadTimeout method to the FunctionService interface? /Alberto On 22/5/19 18:03, Alberto Gomez wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > Thanks again for the information. > > I have played

Review of pull request associated with GEODE-6798

Hi, Could someone review the following PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3710? Thanks in advance, Alberto

Problem with LGTM on geode-native pull request

Hi, I am getting a failure on the C/C++ LGTM analysis over a recently created pull request on geode-native: https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/504 I have noticed that this it the first PR on geode-native having LGTM analysis. There is a .lgtm.yml on the repo that does not seem up to

Re: Problem with LGTM on geode-native pull request

you update the lgtm.yml and push to your > branch. > > Thanks, > Jake > > >> On Jul 30, 2019, at 5:09 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am getting a failure on the C/C++ LGTM analysis over a recently >> created pull request on geode-n

Re: Problem with LGTM on geode-native pull request

Hi, I would not back out the LGTM changes added in the PR as they are necessary. - Alberto On 31/7/19 23:46, Jacob Barrett wrote: > I would say for this PR, back out the LGTM changes and just move forward > ignoring the LGTM results.

Re: Problem with LGTM on geode-native pull request

this bug in a separate commit. I have a copy of > your .yml changes on my "fix LGTM" branch already, please back that change > out and we can merge your PR without LGTM passing. > > Thanks, > > Blake > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:55 AM Alberto Gomez > wrote

Reviewers wanted for GEODE-7019 and GEODE-7049

Hi, I would need some extra reviewers for the following PRs: GEODE-7019 Idle connections are never closed by native C++ client library GEODE-7049 Add timeout parameter to Java native client Execution::execute() methods Any volunteers? Thanks, Alberto

Rat check reporting error in travis-ci for geode-native

Hi, I sent a PR for the geode-native repo and the travis-ci is reporting a Rat error on the following file: ./packer/windows/install-doxygen.ps1 The reason is that the copyright header is not included in it. I could add it in my PR but I guess it would be more convenient if this is fixed on a

[DISCUSS] Improvements on client function execution API

Hi, I have just added the following proposal in the wiki for discussion and would like to get feedback from the community. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/%5BDiscussion%5D+Improvements+on+client+Function+execution+API Problem The client API for function execution is inconsist

Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on client function execution API

the native client problems and solution applies to > native-client? > - Timeout in ResultCollector::getResult() and Execution::execute() blocking This applies to all the clients, both to the Java and the native one (C++ and C# actually). > > -Anil. > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at

Re: Rat check reporting error in travis-ci for geode-native

branch should be able to pass a build, spotlessCheck, and unit tests as a >> prerequisite for making a pull request. >> >> Please follow up here if you have more questions. >> Thank you, >> Helena Bales >> >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:40 AM Alberto Gomez

Re: Fwd: [DISCUSS] Improvements on client function execution API

Hi Dan, Please, see my answers below. On 22/8/19 20:29, Dan Smith wrote: > For the two new execute() methods you are proposing, are you also > suggesting that they be implemented on the server? I was only thinking about the client. > > I took a look at the C++ API. The C++ API also has a > Result

Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on client function execution API

Hi Jake, Please, see my answers below. On 22/8/19 21:16, Jacob Barrett wrote: > >> On Aug 21, 2019, at 8:49 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote: >> 2. Timeout in ResultCollector::getResult() and Execution::execute() blocking >> >> Regarding the timeout in the ResultCollector::get

PR reviewers needed

Hi community, Any volunteers to review the following PR? PR in github: https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/511 JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7061 Thanks in advance, Alberto

Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on client function execution API

would be blocking (deprecated behavior) but could be set to non-blocking with a system property. On the next release, the blocking behavior would be removed. - Alberto G. > -Dan > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:28 AM Alberto Gomez > wrote: > >> Hi Jake, >> >> Pl

Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on client function execution API

current execute() behavior to blocking. > We would not impact the users of the client but we would impact the > users of the server. > > Again, I would propose to aim at: > > a) either leave execute() on the client as blocking > > b) or change execute() on the c

Reason for gemfire.CLIENT_FUNCTION_TIMEOUT

Hi, The gemfire.CLIENT_FUNCTION_TIMEOUT system property allows to set a specific read timeout on the socket when the operation sent over a client connection is a function execution. I have not seen this property documented anywhere but I have seen how it works in the code. Does anybody know wh

Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on client function execution API

bring complications in terms of backward compatibility. Besides, a need for a blocking version of function execution has not been found. -Alberto G. On 29/8/19 16:48, Alberto Gomez wrote: Sorry, some corrections on my comments after revisiting the native client code. When I said that the

Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on client function execution API

, it would be unfortunate to have a method on Execution that simply >> doesn't work on the server side. >> >> -Dan >> >> >>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alberto Gomez wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> First of all, thanks a lo

Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on client function execution API

t; achieve the timeout behavior. > > +1 for the option a) proposed. > > -Anil > > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:03 AM Dan Smith wrote: > >> Thanks for following up on this! >> >> -Dan >> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:07 AM Alberto

Question about rolling back a Geode upgrade

Hi, Looking at the Geode documentation I have not found any reference to rolling back a Geode upgrade. Running some tests, I have observed that once a Geode System has been upgraded to a later version, it is not possible to rollback the upgrade even if no data modifications have been done afte

Reviewers for PR #3888

Hi, Could I please get some extra reviewers for https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3888? This PR is about GEODE-7049: Add timeout parameter to Java client Execution::execute() methods (https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7049). Thanks, -Alberto G.

Re: Question about rolling back a Geode upgrade

y for these scenarios though the infrastructure cost is high. > > Anthony > > >> On Sep 23, 2019, at 5:59 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Looking at the Geode documentation I have not found any reference to >> rolling back a Geode upgrade.

Re: Question about rolling back a Geode upgrade

rictions or there are always possible incompatibilities between versions that make it impossible or unreasonably hard to support this kind of feature? Thanks in advance for your help, -Alberto G. On 23/9/19 17:04, Alberto Gomez wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > That's an option but, as y

Re: Question about rolling back a Geode upgrade

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Managing+Backward+Compatibility On Sep 26, 2019, at 9:37 AM, Alberto Gomez <mailto:alberto.go...@est.tech> wrote: Hi again, I have been investigating a bit more the possibility of supporting "rolling downgrades" in

Review for #4204

Hi, Could I ask for a review on https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4204? This PR is about GEODE-7157: (https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7157). Thanks, /Alberto G.

Re: Review for #4204

Hi, Any volunteer to merge this PR that has already been approved? Thanks, /Alberto G. On 28/10/19 16:05, Alberto Gómez wrote: > Hi, > > Could I ask for a review on https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4204? > > This PR is about GEODE-7157: > (https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7157). >

Reviewers wanted for GEODE-7509: Fix memory leaks in C++ client

Hi, Could I get some reviewers for https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/556? [https://avatars3.githubusercontent.com/u/47359?s=400&v=4] GEODE-7509: Fix memory leaks in C++ client by albertogpz · Pull Request #556 · apache/geode-native

Re: upgrade of geode version

Hi Yossi, Version 1.4 of the cpp native client should work with Geode version 1.10. Client/server backward compatibility is a requirement in Geode as described here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Managing+Backward+Compatibility --

Issues with TransactionIds managed by CacheTransactionManager in C++ native client

Hi, I have created a ticket with some issues I have found related to TransactionIds managed by CacheTransactionManager in the C++ native client. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7573 In it, I also propose some solutions to the issues found. I'd appreciate if someone could review the

Reviewer for GEODE-7534: Add example for query with bind params (documentation)

Hi, I'd appreciate some extra reviewer (I already had one, thanks @Dave Barnes) and if everything is ok someone to merge the following pull request: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4452 Thanks, Alberto

Re: Issues with TransactionIds managed by CacheTransactionManager in C++ native client

so functionally it's essentially useless. I'm not certain what all of the implications will be if suddenly we ascribe meaning to it, so I'll let some folks with more native client history than I chime in. Thanks, Blake On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:15 AM Alberto Gomez wrote: > Hi,

Re: [DISCUSSION] - ClassLoader Isolation

Great proposal! We have run into the problems mentioned in the RFC so it will be a very good addition to Geode. +1 Obtener Outlook para Android From: Udo Kohlmeyer Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 7:10:42 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Su

RFC - Gateway sender to deliver transaction events atomically to receivers

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

Re: RFC - Gateway sender to deliver transaction events atomically to receivers

hu, Mar 26, 2020 at 7:34 AM Jacob Barrett wrote: > Great idea. I called out some similar areas of concerns and spit balled > some solutions to get the conversations flowing. > > -Jake > > > > On Mar 25, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Alberto Gomez > wrote: > > > > Hi, >

Help with Concourse-CI redis integration test failing

Hi, I am seeing the following integration test case fail in the Concourse-CI when executed on my pull request (https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4928): org.apache.geode.redis.SetsIntegrationTest > testSRem_should_notRemoveMembersOfSetNotSpecified FAILED Interestingly, if I run the test loca

Re: Help with Concourse-CI redis integration test failing

/pull/4937 and click Revert near the bottom-right of the page then click Create pull request. > On Apr 11, 2020, at 10:01 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote: > > Hi, > > I am seeing the following integration test case fail in the Concourse-CI when > executed on my pull request (https://githu

Re: Help with Concourse-CI redis integration test failing

en we need to find a 3rd person to approve it, so hoping you can still do it... Alberto, will it let you click "Create pull request" from here: https://github.com/apache/geode/compare/revert-4937-feature_parity_redis_srem_command > On Apr 11, 2020, at 11:09 AM, Alberto Gomez wrot

Re: Help with Concourse-CI redis integration test failing

REM Command" by albertogpz · Pull Request #4947 · apache/geode<https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4947> Reverts #4937 github.com -Alberto ________ From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 8:49 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Help with Concourse

Reviewers for GEODE-7971 Gateway sender to deliver transaction events atomically to gateway receivers

Hi, Could I ask for a review on https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4928? This PR is about "Gateway sender to deliver transaction events atomically to gateway receivers" (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7971). Thanks, /Alberto G.

Re: Reviewers for GEODE-7971 Gateway sender to deliver transaction events atomically to gateway receivers

Hi, Friendly reminder - No reviewers yet for this PR. -Alberto G. From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 3:34 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Reviewers for GEODE-7971 Gateway sender to deliver transaction events atomically to gateway receivers

About Geode rolling downgrade

Hi, Some months ago I posted a question on this list (see [1]) about the possibility of supporting "rolling downgrade" in Geode in order to downgrade a Geode system to an older version, similar to the "rolling upgrade" currently supported. With your answers and my investigations my conclusion w

Re: About Geode rolling downgrade

in extra development and testing in order to ensure that older algorithms could always be brought back on-line. On 4/16/20, 4:24 AM, "Alberto Gomez" wrote: Hi, Some months ago I posted a question on this list (see [1]) about the possibility of supporting "rolling dow

Re: Reviewers for GEODE-7971 Gateway sender to deliver transaction events atomically to gateway receivers

Hi again, The review for this PR is still pending. I've seen that several people have been appointed to do it but there's been no progress yet. Could you please check it? Thanks in advance, -Alberto G. ____ From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Thursday, April 16,

Re: About Geode rolling downgrade

Hi again, Considering Geode does not support online rollback for the time being and since we have the need to rollback even a standalone system, we were thinking on a procedure to downgrade Geode cluster tolerating downtime, but without a need to: * spin another cluster to sync from, *

Re: About Geode rolling downgrade

Hi, I friendly reminder to the community about this request for feedback. Thanks, -Alberto G. From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 10:44 AM To: geode Subject: Re: About Geode rolling downgrade Hi again, Considering Geode does not support online

Question about version checks inside fromData method in GatewaySenderEventImpl

Hi, Looking at the fromData method of GatewaySenderEventImpl I see that it contains a conditional reading of the isConcurrencyConflict when version is greater than Geode 1.9.0 one. See below: @Override public void fromData(DataInput in, DeserializationContext context) throws IOExcepti

Re: Question about version checks inside fromData method in GatewaySenderEventImpl

*GatewaySenderEventImpl *comes from an older member the filed won't be there so we don't even try to parse it. Hope I didn't miss anything. Cheers. [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3967 On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 13:14, Alberto Gomez wrote: > Hi, > > Looking a

Questions about patch releases and changes in serialization versions / messages

Hi, The recently approved RFC about patch releases (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Shipping+patch+releases) says the following about what changes should and should not be backported to a support branch: What changes should be back ported to a support branch? The community w

Re: Questions about patch releases and changes in serialization versions / messages

/ messages Serialization changes are only permitted in new minor releases (x.y.0). > On May 22, 2020, at 4:40 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote: > > Hi, > > The recently approved RFC about patch releases > (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Shipping+patch+releases) > say

CI concourse checks on a PR not triggered

Hi, Since last Friday, the concourse checks for the following PR are not being triggered: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4928 I have tried to launch them by pushing empty commits but have not been successful Could anybody give me a hand? Thanks in advance, -Alberto G.

Re: CI concourse checks on a PR not triggered

/pipelines/apache-develop-pr/jobs/Build/builds/7594 Unfortunately the PR pipeline is unable to post statuses to the PR when there is a conflict. Please rebase your PR branch to latest develop to clear this up. On 5/24/20, 11:39 PM, "Alberto Gomez" wrote: Hi, Since last F

Problem in rolling upgrade since 1.12

Hi, I have observed that since version 1.12 rolling upgrades to future versions leave the first upgraded locator "as if" it was still on version 1.12. This is the output from "list members" before starting the upgrade from version 1.12: Name | Id |

Re: Problem in rolling upgrade since 1.12

Hi, I attach a diff for the modified test case in case you would like to use it to check the problem I mentioned. BR, Alberto From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2020 4:06 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Problem in rolling upgrade since 1.12 Hi

Re: Problem in rolling upgrade since 1.12

t apply’s check…. Also these tests pass on develop, would you be able to check against the latest and update the diff? I’m very interested in reproducing the issue you have observed. Thanks, Ernie From: Alberto Gomez Reply-To: "dev@geode.apache.org" Date: Monday, June 8, 2020

Re: Problem in rolling upgrade since 1.12

: Thursday, June 11, 2020 1:53 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Problem in rolling upgrade since 1.12 Ernie made us a ticket for this issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-8240 On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:59 PM Alberto Gomez wrote: > Hi Ernie, > > I have seen this pro

Re: About Geode rolling downgrade

Šalje: Alberto Gomez Poslano: 14. svibnja 2020. 14:45 Prima: geode Predmet: Re: About Geode rolling downgrade Hi, I friendly reminder to the community about this request for feedback. Thanks, -Alberto G. From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Thursday, May 7

Reviewers for GEODE-8231: C++ native client keeps trying to connect to down cache server hosting a partitioned region

Hi, Can someone please review my PR about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-8231 (C++ native client keeps trying to connect to down cache server hosting a partitioned region)? Here is the link to the PR: https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/615 Thanks, /Alberto G.

Heap memory used by gateway sender queues way above configured limit after server restart

Hi, I have found an issue with heap memory consumed by gateway sender queues way above the configured limit after a server is restarted (on the restarted server). The problem is described in the following ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-8278 I would highly appreciate some

Re: Reviewers for GEODE-8231: C++ native client keeps trying to connect to down cache server hosting a partitioned region

Hi, I have no complete reviews yet. Any volunteers? Thanks, Alberto From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 1:31 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Reviewers for GEODE-8231: C++ native client keeps trying to connect to down cache server hosting a

Re: Successful build on windows

Hi Kirk, I build on Ubuntu 18.02 and I occasionally see the partial stack traces you mentioned on geode-wan:tests you mentioned. So it is not just a Windows thing. Never figured out what they provoked them and neither how to get them consistently. BR, Alberto

Re: Fate of master branch

I agree also on removing the master branch. As a relatively new member of the community it's been a source of confusion to me when looking at what is said in the wiki about it (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Versioning+and+Branching) and comparing it with the actual practice.

Question about gateway sender stopped and memory consumption

Hi, We have observed that when a gateway sender is stopped in a site, all the events received while it is stopped are stored in the 'AbstractGatewaySender.tmpDroppedEvents' queue of the primary sender. The elements of this queue are not removed from this queue until the sender is started back

Re: Question about gateway sender stopped and memory consumption

20 at 10:33 AM Alberto Gomez wrote: > Hi, > > We have observed that when a gateway sender is stopped in a site, all the > events received while it is stopped are stored in the > 'AbstractGatewaySender.tmpDroppedEvents' queue of the primary sender. The > elements of thi

Re: Question about gateway sender stopped and memory consumption

disk. If that's not currently true, > then it seems like a good direction might be to make tmpDroppedEvents use a > durable queue of some sort that overflows to disk. > > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:33 AM Alberto Gomez > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We hav

[DISCUSS] RFC - Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped

Hi, I have published a new RFC in the Apache Geode wiki with the following title: "Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped". https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Avoid+the+queuing+of+dropped+events+by+the+primary+gateway

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped

e is not unbound? Regards, Eric ________ From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 8:24 AM To: geode Subject: [DISCUSS] RFC - Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped Hi, I have published a new RFC in the

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped

ards, Eric ____ From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 12:02 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped Thanks for your comments, Eric. Limiting the size of the queue would b

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped

eue, there is no need to add into > tmpDroppedEvents at all. To me, it should be only used for limited events > to be queued. > > Regards, > Eric > ____ > From: Alberto Gomez > Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 12:02 PM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject:

Re: [Proposal] - RFC etiquette

Hi Geode Devs, First of all, Udo, thanks for your proposal. I am all up for what you are aiming at: "better round out each RFC. Causing less delays later in the process and allowing all community members to actively participate in the review process regardless of technical skill level." Second

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped

e enqueued in the secondary queue, there is no need to add into tmpDroppedEvents at all. To me, it should be only used for limited events to be queued. Regards, Eric From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 12:02 PM To: dev@geode.

Review needed for PR "Different behavior in transactions on partitioned regions between creating the region with a parallel gateway sender vs altering the region to add the parallel gateway sender"

Hi Geode devs, I'd a appreciate some reviews for PR https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5476 related to GEODE-8455 "Different behavior in transactions on partitioned regions between creating the region with a parallel gateway sender vs altering the region to add the parallel gateway sender". [

Re: [Discussion] - ClassLoaderService RFC proposal

Nice proposal, Udo. Here come some questions: Is the ClassLoader isolation RFC implemented? I have not seen any references to it in the doc or code. To me this RFC seems like a part of the ClassLoader isolation RFC as, without it, the original one would not work completely. Is this right? If

Re: PR process and etiquette

+1 to draft PRs. By the way @Blake Bender, it's me the one having the draft PR for GEODE-8318. Alberto G. From: Blake Bender Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 2:28 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette +1 f

Re: PR process and etiquette

Hi there, Here come my 2 cents. @Udo Kohlmeyer, thanks for your proposals to make this community better, and also for your willingness to get feedback from people who are new to the community. In my experience, one of the tricky parts working in the community is getting

Re: Please review and contribute: draft of Nov 2020 Apache board report

Hi Karen, According to the membership data I'd say the Committer-to-PMC ratio is closer to 2:1 than to 7:4. Alberto From: Karen Miller Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 8:25 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Please review and contribute: draft of Nov 2020 Apach

Review for "C++ native client Function.execute() with onServers does not throw exception if one of the servers goes down while executing the function."

Hi, Could somebody review PR https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/690 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-8693?filter=-2). Thanks, /Alberto G.

apache-geode-1.13.0.tgz not found in LGTM analysis

Hi, I am getting the following error in the LGTM analysis of some pull requests since yesterday (for example https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/690): [2020-11-19 07:25:41] [build-err] + wget -O apache-geode.tgz http://mirror.transip.net/apache/geode/1.13.0/apache-geode-1.13.0.tgz [2020

Re: apache-geode-1.13.0.tgz not found in LGTM analysis

] https://github.com/apache/geode/blob/develop/dev-tools/release/set_versions.sh -Owen From: Alberto Gomez Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 2:39 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: apache-geode-1.13.0.tgz not found in LGTM analysis Hi, I am getting the following error in the LGTM analysis

Review for GEODE-8765: Fix NullPointerException when group-transaction-events and events in and not in transactions are sent.

Hi, Could I get some reviewers for PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5829 Thanks in advance, /Alberto G.

Question about -Dgemfire.GatewaySender.REMOVE_FROM_QUEUE_ON_EXCEPTION

Hi, I have recently discovered the "gemfire.GatewaySender.REMOVE_FROM_QUEUE_ON_EXCEPTION" Geode System property that allows to change the default behavior of Gateway Senders so that when an exception occurs when handling an event, instead of proceeding with the rest of events in the batch and

Re: Question about -Dgemfire.GatewaySender.REMOVE_FROM_QUEUE_ON_EXCEPTION

emote site never successfully processes a batch. There is a draft proposal for a callback that is a middle ground between these two behaviors, but it hasn't been implemented at this point. Barry ____ From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020

[DISCUSS] RFC - Add option to allow newer Geode clients to connect to older Geode servers

Hi Geode devs, I have just published the following RFC in the Geode wiki: "Add option to allow newer Geode clients to connect to older Geode servers" https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Add+option+to+allow+newer+Geode+clients+to+connect+to+older+Geode+servers Could you please prov

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Add option to allow newer Geode clients to connect to older Geode servers

known to be compatible with? Then you wouldn’t even have to set the property. > On Jan 22, 2021, at 11:05 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote: > > Hi Geode devs, > > I have just published the following RFC in the Geode wiki: "Add option to > allow newer Geode clients to connect

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Add option to allow newer Geode clients to connect to older Geode servers

Hi, I have updated the proposal in the RFC by adding Patrick's suggestion (if I have understood it correctly). Best regards, Alberto From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 10:41 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Add o

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Add option to allow newer Geode clients to connect to older Geode servers

rsion and adjusts accordingly. You can see this in ClientSideHandshakeImpl.handshakeWithServer. This will require a lot of testing to make sure that users won't see strange corruption related errors related to serialization changes. -Dan ____ From: Alberto G

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Add option to allow newer Geode clients to connect to older Geode servers

to be a different version. I think it's possible that the errors might show up only in log messages or corrupted values, and only if you are using whatever features are affected by a protocol change. -Dan From: Alberto Gomez mailto:alber

Question about Map indexes

Hi, We have observed that creating an index on a Map field causes the creation of an index entry for every entry created in the region containing the Map, no matter if the Map field contained the key used in the index. Nevertheless, we would expect that only entries whose Map field contain the k

Re: Question about Map indexes

ases where it might matter. There may be other ways to execute the query but it would probably take a bit of reworking.. (ill check your pr to see if this is already addressed. Sorry if it is!) -Jason On 2/11/21, 8:28 AM, "Alberto Gomez" wrote: Hi, We have observed that

Re: Question about Map indexes

1759476/database-index-not-used-if-the-where-criteria-is [2] https://geode.apache.org/docs/guide/19/developing/query_index/indexing_guidelines.html ________ From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 5:40 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Question about

Re: [DISCUSS] client/server communications and versioning

+1 This proposal makes a lot of sense. Besides, I recently sent a proposal to allow clients to communicate with servers in an older version in case the compatibility was not broken in the new version of the client ([1]). With your proposal, the aim of that RFC could also be achieved. Following

Question about closing of all connections towards an endpoint in C++ native client

Hi, Running some tests with the C++ native client and looking at the code, I have observed that when an error in a connection towards an endpoint (timeout, IO error) is detected, not only the faulty connection is closed but the endpoint is set to "not connected" status which eventually provokes

Re: Question about closing of all connections towards an endpoint in C++ native client

then terminate that connection. Continue until a pong response is received. -Jake > On Feb 24, 2021, at 4:36 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote: > > Hi, > > Running some tests with the C++ native client and looking at the code, I have > observed that when an error in a connection t

[DISCUSS] CODEOWNERS mechanism feedback

Hi, It's been more than two months since the CODEOWNERS file has been in place to automatically add reviewers to pull requests. While we have seen the great benefit of having the experts in the matter being automatically assigned as reviewers to each pull request, I have the feeling that the re

CODEWATCHERS file effects

Hi, I have recently added myself to the CODEWATCHERS file to be assigned as reviewer to PRs touching certain areas of the code but seems that I am being added to many more PRs that what I intended, even to Draft PRs. Is anybody else experiencing the same? Thanks, Alberto

Re: CODEWATCHERS file effects

there was one test change in geode-wan so that one seems correct. I am looking for a solution to avoid adding watchers to draft PRs until they are taken out of draft mode, but it's non-trivial so I don't have an ETA yet. On 3/23/21, 12:08 PM, "Alberto Gomez" wrote: Hi,

  1   2   >