commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: Commons-transaction abandoned?
Date Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:51:05 GMT
I think the next step would be to raise the issue on the dev list -
retiring Transaction because xyz. Then if no one has any bright ideas
or helps you have any bright ideas then we can go ahead and move it
onto the retirement side.

It's a pretty strong message to say "This is just not implementable. "
so I imagine we'd want to bash the thoughts around a bit to make sure
they hold up.


On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Oliver Zeigermann
<> wrote:
> I thought about it for a while and I really think it is true. Of
> course you could change what is on the tin, but then it would no
> longer be of major interest.
> Thus, except anyone else wants to bring it further, the project is dead.
> What would be the steps for its funeral (feels bad as this would be
> the second Apache project funeral I am involved in)?
> - Oliver
> 2010/3/5 Henri Yandell <>:
>> That would be dead then :)
>> If it's not possible - I think we should retire the library asap with
>> such a statement. Do not use - it's not able to do what it says on the
>> tin.
>> Is there any more conversation we should have before determining that
>> a) it's misleading and b) there shouldn't be a 1.3 or 2.0 release with
>> the improved if not great functionality?
>> Hen
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Oliver Zeigermann
>> <> wrote:
>>> Folks!
>>> What Henri says is completely right.
>>> The project has been abandoned by me as I lost faith in one of its
>>> goal - ACID properties (especially atomicity) on any file system. From
>>> my (and others) point of view it can not be achieved by *any*
>>> implementation. So if you are asking whether there is another
>>> implementation that is more suitable, my answer is "there can't be
>>> any".
>>> Certain parts of the 2.0 code are quite reasonable, though, especially
>>> the locking and deadlock detection part. That's why I have not been
>>> determined what to do with the project. Certainly 2.0 is better than
>>> 1.x by any means, but I still think it should not be released as its
>>> promises can not be kept.
>>> Any thoughts?
>>> - Oliver
>>> 2010/3/5 Henri Yandell <>:
>>>> The current version is 1.2 (released in 2007).
>>>> 1.3-SNAPSHOT is then the subsequent version in development, but it
>>>> looks as though it was quickly renamed to 2.0.
>>>> 2.0 currently has 6 of 9 issues resolved, the most recent being
>>>> reported and applied in Sept 2009, and 2 of the open issues were
>>>> opened a month ago.
>>>> So I wouldn't call it dead - there just hasn't been much to do. Your
>>>> email does raise the question of whether 2.0 should be released or
>>>> not. I've cc'd Oliver who has been doing most of the work.
>>>> Hen
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM, John Ericksen <>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> I came across the file transaction capabilities in commons-transaction
>>>>> which was exactly what I was looking for.  To my disapointment, however,
>>>>> looks like there hasn't been an update to the project for over 2 years.
>>>>> home page says the current version is a SNAPSHOT and from my search of
>>>>> mailing list, it looks like 2.0 is upcoming (in 2007?).
>>>>> My question is, is the commons-transaction project abandoned, is there
>>>>> better library out there for transactional file system operations?
>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>> John

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message