couple more NEWBIE tickets

[yzhdanov]

Guys,

Tickets are waiting for their contributors!

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-944
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-945

--Yakov

[Marko Jevtic]

I’d take IGNITE-945, but I would need some pointers :)

I looked at master branch, there’s no handler for LOG rest command, … unless LOG command should be registered in some other way I’m not seeing…

I assume this is the description of the command in case handler should be implemented:
https://apacheignite.readme.io/v1.0/docs/rest-api#log <https://apacheignite.readme.io/v1.0/docs/rest-api#log>

Should I be looking at the sprint-5 branch only ?

> On May 28, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> Tickets are waiting for their contributors!
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-944
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-945
>
> --Yakov

[yzhdanov]

Marco,

945 is a bit simpler. I would also start with it. What you need to do is to
replace transaction based logic inside
GridCacheCommandHandler#appendOrPrepend()
with org.apache.ignite.IgniteCache#invoke() preserving the semantics. If we
remove explicit transaction start and change the whole thing to a single
transform we have logic that works for TX and ATOMIC caches and produce the
same results.

I also think you can remove the logic which submits cache operation to a
separate thread because it is not needed any more
- ctx.closure().callLocalSafe(..). You should return future for invoke
operation. That will be enough. I filed another ticket to revise other
handlers for this shortcoming (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-957).

As far, as LOG handler - you are right http handler for it is missing, but
now I am thinking whether we still need it. It seems we can skip it and
remove the command from API.

Marco, you should start implementation in a branch made out from
ignite-sprint-5 and then attach patch to JIRA issue. Please also feel free
to assign it to yourself (IGNITE-945).

Let me know if you have more questions.

--Yakov

2015-05-28 21:30 GMT+03:00 Marko Jevtic <[hidden email]>:

> I’d take IGNITE-945, but I would need some pointers :)
>
> I looked at master branch, there’s no handler for LOG rest command, …
> unless LOG command should be registered in some other way I’m not seeing…
>
> I assume this is the description of the command in case handler should be
> implemented:
> https://apacheignite.readme.io/v1.0/docs/rest-api#log <
> https://apacheignite.readme.io/v1.0/docs/rest-api#log>
>
> Should I be looking at the sprint-5 branch only ?
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > Tickets are waiting for their contributors!
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-944
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-945
> >
> > --Yakov
>
>

[Marko Jevtic]

I don’t have permission to assign it to myself. My Jira user is: markoo

> On May 29, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Marco,
>
> 945 is a bit simpler. I would also start with it. What you need to do is to
> replace transaction based logic inside
> GridCacheCommandHandler#appendOrPrepend()
> with org.apache.ignite.IgniteCache#invoke() preserving the semantics. If we
> remove explicit transaction start and change the whole thing to a single
> transform we have logic that works for TX and ATOMIC caches and produce the
> same results.
>
> I also think you can remove the logic which submits cache operation to a
> separate thread because it is not needed any more
> - ctx.closure().callLocalSafe(..). You should return future for invoke
> operation. That will be enough. I filed another ticket to revise other
> handlers for this shortcoming (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-957).
>
> As far, as LOG handler - you are right http handler for it is missing, but
> now I am thinking whether we still need it. It seems we can skip it and
> remove the command from API.
>
> Marco, you should start implementation in a branch made out from
> ignite-sprint-5 and then attach patch to JIRA issue. Please also feel free
> to assign it to yourself (IGNITE-945).
>
> Let me know if you have more questions.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2015-05-28 21:30 GMT+03:00 Marko Jevtic <[hidden email]>:
>
>> I’d take IGNITE-945, but I would need some pointers :)
>>
>> I looked at master branch, there’s no handler for LOG rest command, …
>> unless LOG command should be registered in some other way I’m not seeing…
>>
>> I assume this is the description of the command in case handler should be
>> implemented:
>> https://apacheignite.readme.io/v1.0/docs/rest-api#log <
>> https://apacheignite.readme.io/v1.0/docs/rest-api#log>
>>
>> Should I be looking at the sprint-5 branch only ?
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 28, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> Tickets are waiting for their contributors!
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-944
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-945
>>>
>>> --Yakov
>>
>>

[dsetrakyan]

Marko,

I have added you to the list of Ignite contributors in Jira and assigned
INIGTE-945 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-945> to you. You
can now assign tickets to yourself, so feel free to pick another ticket if
you would like to work on anything else.

Looking forward to your contributions. You will be eligible to become a
committer once your first contribution is accepted.

Thanks,
D.


On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Marko Jevtic <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I don’t have permission to assign it to myself. My Jira user is: markoo
>
> > On May 29, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Marco,
> >
> > 945 is a bit simpler. I would also start with it. What you need to do is
> to
> > replace transaction based logic inside
> > GridCacheCommandHandler#appendOrPrepend()
> > with org.apache.ignite.IgniteCache#invoke() preserving the semantics. If
> we
> > remove explicit transaction start and change the whole thing to a single
> > transform we have logic that works for TX and ATOMIC caches and produce
> the
> > same results.
> >
> > I also think you can remove the logic which submits cache operation to a
> > separate thread because it is not needed any more
> > - ctx.closure().callLocalSafe(..). You should return future for invoke
> > operation. That will be enough. I filed another ticket to revise other
> > handlers for this shortcoming (
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-957).
> >
> > As far, as LOG handler - you are right http handler for it is missing,
> but
> > now I am thinking whether we still need it. It seems we can skip it and
> > remove the command from API.
> >
> > Marco, you should start implementation in a branch made out from
> > ignite-sprint-5 and then attach patch to JIRA issue. Please also feel
> free
> > to assign it to yourself (IGNITE-945).
> >
> > Let me know if you have more questions.
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
> > 2015-05-28 21:30 GMT+03:00 Marko Jevtic <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> I’d take IGNITE-945, but I would need some pointers :)
> >>
> >> I looked at master branch, there’s no handler for LOG rest command, …
> >> unless LOG command should be registered in some other way I’m not
> seeing…
> >>
> >> I assume this is the description of the command in case handler should
> be
> >> implemented:
> >> https://apacheignite.readme.io/v1.0/docs/rest-api#log <
> >> https://apacheignite.readme.io/v1.0/docs/rest-api#log>
> >>
> >> Should I be looking at the sprint-5 branch only ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On May 28, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Guys,
> >>>
> >>> Tickets are waiting for their contributors!
> >>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-944
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-945
> >>>
> >>> --Yakov
> >>
> >>
>
>