directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Txns & tests heads up
Date Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:33:48 GMT
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm fixing tests in core-integ, and so far, I still have some issues in
> uathz (SearchAuthorizationIT) and in schema. All the other tests are now
> passing.
>
> I have moved the txns borders into the OperationManager, and for searches,
> the cursor commit or abort the txn in the close() and close(exception)
> methods.
>
>
Why is the OM better than the CoreSession? Just curious what made you
choose this route. Forgive me if this was discussed in an earlier email.


> I think we should find a way to implicitely commit or abort the txns even
> if the user does not close() the cursors, otherwise it might be extremely
> painful for them. I was thinking about adding a finalaizer in the cursor to
> finish the txns, but it's not a perfect solution (as it depends on the GC
> to be executed.


Oh please don't do this - we should be able to find a better solution I am
sure. There are a myriad of reasons why this is a bad idea IMHO. We can
discuss this once I settle down in one place .. .still traveling.


> Damn I miss the C++ explicit destuctors :/).
> Something more useful would be to allow any txns to reuse an existing
> txns.


YES this is what we need to do for re-entry but there may need to be some
configurable parameter for this.

Maybe we can Skype on this to be fast and report back to the ML.


> Of course, there are some drawbacks, but I think it's probably a better
> approach.
>
>
+1


-- 
Best Regards,
-- Alex

Mime
View raw message