directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <>
Subject Re: Txn Work Update(2)
Date Thu, 01 Dec 2011 08:47:12 GMT
On 12/1/11 8:37 AM, Selcuk AYA wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny<>  wrote:
>> On 11/30/11 11:48 AM, Selcuk AYA wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>> hi !
>>> time to give an update on the txn status. I just checked in some code
>>> with explanation of the changes for each project separately. Here is
>>> just an overall summary and todo:
>>> *I added txn being/commit/abort to ldap requests and ran some test
>>> with txns enabled. Put in various fixes to the txn layer based on the
>>> tests. So first signs life signs for txns. More tests will be done but
>>> I need to digress into AVL first. I also need to handle paged search.
>> Great !
>> Paged search is just a a normal search, but one that last longer. The way we
>> handle it is by using a counter of sent responses.
>> Basically, entries are sent one by one to the client, using a
>> SearchResultEntry to hold the entry. With the pagedSearch, once we have
>> reached the limit set by the client, we stop the sending of entries, and
>> hold the cursor in the user's session, so that he can send back a new search
>> request for then next entries - if needed -. Is there anything special you
>> need to deal with here ? (btw, the cursor will be deleted as soon as the
>> session will be closed. I hope this cleanup is effective...)
> There is not much todo here as you guessed. The only problem is the
> transaction context is stored in a thread local variable. When paged
> search send partial data, we should store the context somewhere and
> hand it off to the thread that will continue processing the search.
ThradLocal is ok during the duration of the request. Why don't we use a 
session context that is associated with the user ? Right now, we are 
using a Context for each request, but inside it, we store the IoSession, 
where we can store some user's specific information, instead of storing 
them in a ThreadLocal.

>>> *I have also been working on removing interfaces related to
>>> modification from the partition
>> Hmmm, can you be a bit more specific ?
> When I say modification or change, I mean
> modify/move/rename/moveAndRename/add/delete. Instead of partitions
> implementing these separately, there is a layer above partitions which
> handle these operations transactionally. The class that handles this
> is called OperationExecutionManager. Partitions expose master table
> and indices for the operation execution manager execute the
> operations.
Ok, understood. Fine with me. It will help a lot when it comes to write 
a new partition, instead of having to implement all the logic for each 
of these operations. Good move.
>>> and have been trying to get rid of the
>>> Store interface. Got rid of the store interface except for config
>>> methods and calls from the ui layer. I removed the modifications up
>>> but still have to call the modification methods of the partition
>>> interface because SchemaPartition triggers some changes based on the
>>> logical  change. I believe those changes can be removed to schema
>>> interceptor?
>> We can't modify a schema. We can only add or delete a schema entry. This is
>> a limitation, and I think it's mandated by the spec (don't remember where it
>> comes from, but the idea is that modifying a schema element might imply a
>> global modification on all the entries, something we don't want to accept).
>>> In general, if a partition wants to do a change based on
>>> a data update, then it should be able to do it during master table
>>> update or by registering an interceptor(For example I changed multi
>>> file ldif partition to do file updates when master table is updated).
>>> Then we can get rid of the modification methods on partitions.
>> you mean, the modify/move/rename/moveAndRename methods ?
> As mentioned above, by change or modification, I mean any operation
> that ends up in update of data. For schema partitions, I believe
> changes triggered after logical ldap change operations can be moved to
> an interceptor.
For schema, we now update the LDIF partition, whch means we go down to 
the partition layer, and everything else is managed by the interceptor, 
already (at least in trunk, and I think I have merged it back to your 
branch. Will check today).

>>> * Would be good to have statement snapshot isolation for
>>> EntryFilteringCursor. Not having this doesnt affect ldap requests but
>>> might affect code that works with EntryFilteringCursor directly.
>>> Currently there are few cases of this especially during startup.
>> I'll buy some more explanation : what is a 'statement snapshot' ?
> Say you do a search and get an entry filtering cursor and then you
> modify the entries that you get from the cursor. Something like this:
> beginTransaction()
> cursor = ..
> while ( )
> {
>    entry = cursor.get();
>    modify entry.
> }
> endTransaction()
> If we have statement snapshot for the search, cursor will not see any
> updates to the master table of index tables done through the
> modifications.  This might be useful in some cases.
Ok, got it.

Emmanuel L├ęcharny

View raw message