Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Message-ID: <4EF63D8F.9060306@apache.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 22:01:03 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?RW1tYW51ZWwgTMOpY2hhcm55?= <elecharny@apache.org>
Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org
Organization: The Apache Software Foundation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Txns & tests heads up
References: <4EF5D8F7.3020603@gmail.com>
 <CADwPi+HXreOuVdFmzepAb0dTZnhPakskEYpG7_wPtbpPEOvSnw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADwPi+HXreOuVdFmzepAb0dTZnhPakskEYpG7_wPtbpPEOvSnw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 12/24/11 8:33 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> 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.

Because there is no Bind() method in the core session, but mainly 
because the ServerContext SPI is calling the OpManager instead of the 
CoreSession.
>
>
>> 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.

It was just a random thought. Finalizer is not a good idea, as there is 
no way you can control when it's called.
>
>
>> 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.

I'll be around tomorrow. Right now, I'm trying to fix the remaining 
tests that are not starting a txn inside another txn.


-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com