Skip to content

Michael Nitschinger
daschl

Organizations

@UnionOfRAD @spring-projects @netty @couchbase
daschl commented on pull request couchbaselabs/sdk-rfcs#23
@daschl

@ingenthr okay I'll give it another pass

daschl commented on pull request couchbaselabs/sdk-rfcs#9
@daschl

Okay, I updated the spec with some additional clarifications that hopefully address @jeffrymorris comments. Now another issue was brought up and th…

@daschl
@daschl
@daschl
@daschl
@daschl
daschl commented on pull request couchbaselabs/sdk-rfcs#9
@daschl

@mnunberg @brett19 I don't see where it throws a wrench in, but what we can do is make it accept DocumentFragments in addition to Documents, since …

daschl commented on pull request couchbaselabs/sdk-rfcs#9
@daschl

Ah, I guess we need to clarify in the spec, this is on the part where all the other query options are, associated with each query. Actually I was t…

daschl commented on pull request couchbaselabs/sdk-rfcs#9
@daschl

I'll clarify in the spec too, but you shouldn't have more than one token per vbucket, so when a new mutation arrives with a higher seqno for that v…

daschl commented on pull request couchbaselabs/sdk-rfcs#9
@daschl

@jeffrymorris yes, the idea was that setting something on consistent_with implies "at_plus", so there is no need to set the param explicitly (which…

@daschl
daschl commented on pull request couchbaselabs/sdk-rfcs#26
@daschl

Overall I like this updated spec, but in some areas it probably needs to be enhanced (after discussion): The toplevel APIs like lookupIn and mutat…

daschl commented on pull request couchbaselabs/sdk-rfcs#23
@daschl

@ingenthr is that what you had in mind? If so we should do a final round of vote here and get the updated merged in, since technically we are alrea…

daschl commented on pull request couchbaselabs/sdk-rfcs#9
@daschl

@couchbaselabs/sdk-team please another round of review and if :+1: then also please provide the API for it!

@daschl
daschl commented on pull request couchbaselabs/sdk-rfcs#9
@daschl

@brett19 I'll update the proposal with the latest approach, I really think that makes sense. Once updated we can do a final round of comments befor…

daschl commented on pull request netty/netty#4811
@daschl

if that's the case we also need it on setExtras

daschl commented on pull request netty/netty#4811
@daschl

I'm good with it if @normanmaurer +1's the retain stuff as well :) otherwise, awesome! This helps reduce the gc quite a bunch

@daschl

I think this is a good change, :+1:

@daschl
daschl commented on pull request couchbase/docs-cb4#243
@daschl

I guess this needs to go against 4.1 and 4.0.

daschl commented on pull request couchbase/docs-cb4#243
@daschl

:+1:

@daschl

:+1:

daschl commented on pull request netty/netty#4811
@daschl

In general it looks good to me, I'm only worried why we do call retain() so often, on the individual elements, and also in the aggregator. If this …

daschl commented on commit windie/netty@ca9f643a61
@daschl

that seems unrelated - are you sure we need to retain the extras (and now the ID separately)? I think we do it for the whole message already, right?

@daschl

good idea! :+1:

@daschl

yes I can try - is there a specific way it should not fail like before? Since when browsing around it did not show up after the first error.

Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.