ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: distributed transaction of non-single coordinator
Date Fri, 30 Jun 2017 15:28:17 GMT
Alex, I have commented in the ticket. Please take a look.

Thanks!
--
Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
*GridGain Systems*
www.gridgain.com

2017-06-29 17:27 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>:

> I've attached HangTest. I suppose it should not hang, am i right ?
>
> чт, 29 июн. 2017 г. в 14:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>:
>
> > Igntrs.
> > Im rewieving all usages of threadId of
> > transaction.(IgniteTxAdapter#threadID). What is the point of usage
> threadId
> > in mvcc entry ?
> >
> > пн, 3 апр. 2017 г. в 9:47, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> so what do u think on my idea?
> >>
> >> пт, 31 Мар 2017 г., 11:05 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> sorry for misleading you. We planned to support multi-node
> transactions,
> >>> but failed.
> >>>
> >>> пт, 31 мар. 2017 г. в 10:51, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> Well, now the scenario is more clear, but it has nothing to do with
> >>> multiple coordinators :) Let me think a little bit about it.
> >>>
> >>> 2017-03-31 9:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
> >:
> >>>
> >>> > so what do u think on the issue ?
> >>> >
> >>> > чт, 30 Мар 2017 г., 17:49 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
> >>> >:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Hi ! Thanks for help. I've created ticket :
> >>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4887
> >>> > > and a commit :
> >>> > >
> >>> https://github.com/voipp/ignite/commit/aa3487bd9c203394f534c605f84e06
> >>> > 436b638e5c
> >>> > > We really need this feature
> >>> > >
> >>> > > чт, 30 мар. 2017 г. в 11:31, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >>> > > >:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Aleksey,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I doubt your approach works as expected. Current transaction
> recovery
> >>> > > protocol heavily relies on the originating node ID in its internal
> >>> logic.
> >>> > > For example, currently a transaction will be rolled back if you
> want
> >>> to
> >>> > > transfer a transaction ownership to another node and original tx
> >>> owner
> >>> > > fails. An attempt to commit such a transaction on another node may
> >>> fail
> >>> > > with all sorts of assertions. After transaction ownership changed,
> >>> you
> >>> > need
> >>> > > to notify all current transaction participants about this change,
> >>> and it
> >>> > > should also be done failover-safe, let alone that you did not add
> any
> >>> > tests
> >>> > > for these cases.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I back Denis here. Please create a ticket first and come up with
> >>> clear
> >>> > > use-cases, API and protocol changes design. It is hard to reason
> >>> about
> >>> > the
> >>> > > changes you've made when we do not even understand why you are
> making
> >>> > these
> >>> > > changes and how they are supposed to work.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --AG
> >>> > >
> >>> > > 2017-03-30 10:43 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > So, what do u think on my idea ?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > ср, 29 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
> >>> > > >:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > Hi! No, i dont have ticket for this.
> >>> > > > > In the ticket i have implemented methods that change
> transaction
> >>> > status
> >>> > > > to
> >>> > > > > STOP, thus letting it to commit transaction in another thread.
> In
> >>> > > another
> >>> > > > > thread you r going to restart transaction in order to commit
> it.
> >>> > > > > The mechanism behind it is obvious : we change thread id to
> >>> newer one
> >>> > > in
> >>> > > > > ThreadMap, and make use of serialization of txState,
> transactions
> >>> > > itself
> >>> > > > to
> >>> > > > > transfer them into another thread.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > вт, 28 мар. 2017 г. в 20:15, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Aleksey,
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > Do you have a ticket for this? Could you briefly list what
> >>> exactly
> >>> > was
> >>> > > > > done and how the things work.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > —
> >>> > > > > Denis
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:32 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com>
> >>> > > > > wrote:
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Hi, Igniters! I 've made implementation of transactions of
> >>> > non-single
> >>> > > > > > coordinator. Here you can start transaction in one thread and
> >>> > commit
> >>> > > it
> >>> > > > > in
> >>> > > > > > another thread.
> >>> > > > > > Take a look on it. Give your thoughts on it.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > https://github.com/voipp/ignite/pull/10/commits/
> >>> > > > 3a3d90aa6ac84f125e4c3ce4ced4f269a695ef45
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > пт, 17 мар. 2017 г. в 19:26, Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
> >>> > > > >:
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > >> You know better, go ahead! :)
> >>> > > > > >>
> >>> > > > > >> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>
> >>> > > > > >> 2017-03-17 16:16 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >:
> >>> > > > > >>
> >>> > > > > >>> we've discovered several problems regarding your
> >>> "accumulation"
> >>> > > > > >>> approach.These are
> >>> > > > > >>>
> >>> > > > > >>>   1. perfomance issues when transfering data from temporary
> >>> cache
> >>> > > to
> >>> > > > > >>>   permanent one. Keep in mind big deal of concurent
> >>> transactions
> >>> > in
> >>> > > > > >>> Service
> >>> > > > > >>>   commiter
> >>> > > > > >>>   2. extreme memory load when keeping temporary cache in
> >>> memory
> >>> > > > > >>>   3. As long as user is not acquainted with ignite, working
> >>> with
> >>> > > > cache
> >>> > > > > >>>   must be transparent for him. Keep this in mind. User's
> >>> node can
> >>> > > > > >> evaluate
> >>> > > > > >>>   logic with no transaction at all, so we should deal with
> >>> both
> >>> > > types
> >>> > > > > of
> >>> > > > > >>>   execution flow : transactional and
> >>> non-transactional.Another
> >>> > one
> >>> > > > > >>> problem is
> >>> > > > > >>>   transaction id support at the user node. We would have
> >>> handled
> >>> > > all
> >>> > > > > >> this
> >>> > > > > >>>   issues and many more.
> >>> > > > > >>>   4. we cannot pessimistically lock entity.
> >>> > > > > >>>
> >>> > > > > >>> As a result, we decided to move on building distributed
> >>> > > transaction.
> >>> > > > We
> >>> > > > > >> put
> >>> > > > > >>> aside your "accumulation" approach until we realize how to
> >>> solve
> >>> > > > > >>> difficulties above .
> >>> > > > > >>>
> >>> > > > > >>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 16:56, Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > > sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >:
> >>> > > > > >>>
> >>> > > > > >>>> The problem "How to run millions of entities, and millions
> >>> of
> >>> > > > > >> operations
> >>> > > > > >>> on
> >>> > > > > >>>> a single Pentium3" is out of scope here. Do the math, plan
> >>> > > capacity
> >>> > > > > >>>> reasonably.
> >>> > > > > >>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>> 2017-03-16 15:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > > alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>> hmm, If we have millions of entities, and millions of
> >>> > operations,
> >>> > > > > >> would
> >>> > > > > >>>> not
> >>> > > > > >>>>> this approache lead to memory overflow and perfomance
> >>> > degradation
> >>> > > > > >>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>> чт, 16 мар. 2017 г. в 15:42, Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> 1. Actually you have to check versions on all the values
> >>> you
> >>> > > have
> >>> > > > > >>> read
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> during the tx.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> For example if we have [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] and do:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> put(k1, get(k2) + 5)
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> We have to remember the version for k2. This logic can
> be
> >>> > > > > >> relatively
> >>> > > > > >>>>> easily
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> encapsulated in a framework atop of Ignite. You need to
> >>> > > implement
> >>> > > > > >> one
> >>> > > > > >>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> make all this stuff usable.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> 2. I suggest to avoid any locking here, because you
> easily
> >>> > will
> >>> > > > end
> >>> > > > > >>> up
> >>> > > > > >>>>> with
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> deadlocks. If you do not have too frequent updates for
> >>> your
> >>> > > keys,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> optimistic approach will work just fine.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> Theoretically in the Committer Service you can start a
> >>> thread
> >>> > > for
> >>> > > > > >> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> lifetime of the whole distributed transaction, take a
> >>> lock on
> >>> > > the
> >>> > > > > >> key
> >>> > > > > >>>>> using
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> IgniteCache.lock(K key) before executing any Services,
> >>> wait
> >>> > for
> >>> > > > all
> >>> > > > > >>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> services to complete, execute optimistic commit in the
> >>> same
> >>> > > thread
> >>> > > > > >>>> while
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> keeping this lock and then release it. Notice that all
> the
> >>> > > Ignite
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> transactions inside of all Services must be optimistic
> >>> here to
> >>> > > be
> >>> > > > > >>> able
> >>> > > > > >>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> read this locked key.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> But again I do not recommend you using this approach
> >>> until you
> >>> > > > > >> have a
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> reliable deadlock avoidance scheme.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> 2017-03-16 12:53 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > > >>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Yeah, now i got it.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> There are some doubts on this approach
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> 1) During optimistic commit phase, when you assure no
> one
> >>> > > altered
> >>> > > > > >>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> original values, you must check versions of other
> >>> dependent
> >>> > > keys.
> >>> > > > > >>> How
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> could
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> we obtain those keys(in an automative manner, of
> course)
> >>> ?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> 2) How could we lock a key before some Service A
> >>> introduce
> >>> > > > > >> changes?
> >>> > > > > >>>> So
> >>> > > > > >>>>> no
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> other service is allowed to change this key-value?(sort
> >>> of
> >>> > > > > >>>> pessimistic
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> blocking)
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> May be you know some implementations of such approach ?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:54, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > > >>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thank you very much for help.  I will answer later.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> All the services do not update key in place, but only
> >>> > generate
> >>> > > > > >>> new
> >>> > > > > >>>>> keys
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> augmented by otx and store the updated value in the
> same
> >>> > cache
> >>> > > > > >> +
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> remember
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the keys and versions participating in the transaction
> >>> in
> >>> > some
> >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache
> >>> contents by
> >>> > > > > >> each
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Service:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Initial cache contents:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service A:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2a]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>         + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some
> >>> separate
> >>> > > > > >>> atomic
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> cache
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Cache contents after Service B:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> in
> >>> some
> >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Finally the Committer Service takes this map of
> updated
> >>> keys
> >>> > > > > >> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>> their
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> versions from some separate atomic cache, starts
> Ignite
> >>> > > > > >>> transaction
> >>> > > > > >>>>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken
> >>> from k*x
> >>> > > > > >>> keys.
> >>> > > > > >>>>> The
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> successful result must be the following:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1x => v1a]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2x => v2ab]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3x => v3b]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>        + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> in
> >>> some
> >>> > > > > >>>>> separate
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> atomic cache
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> But Committer Service also has to check that no one
> >>> updated
> >>> > > the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> original
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> values before us, because otherwise we can not give
> any
> >>> > > > > >>>>> serializability
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here we
> >>> may
> >>> > need
> >>> > > > > >> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>> check
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> not
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> only versions of the updated keys, but also versions
> of
> >>> any
> >>> > > > > >> other
> >>> > > > > >>>>> keys
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> end
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> result depends on.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup (may
> be
> >>> > > > > >> outside
> >>> > > > > >>> of
> >>> > > > > >>>>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> committing tx) to come to the following final state:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k1 => v1a]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k2 => v2ab]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>            [k3 => v3b]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Makes sense?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > > >>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - what do u mean by saying "
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *in a single transaction checks value versions for
> all
> >>> the
> >>> > > > > >> old
> >>> > > > > >>>>> values
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>    and replaces them with calculated new ones *"?
> Every
> >>> > time
> >>> > > > > >>> you
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> change
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   value(in some service), you store it to *some
> special
> >>> > > > > >> atomic
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> cache*
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   when all services ceased working, Service commiter
> >>> got a
> >>> > > > > >>>> values
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> with
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   last versions.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and
> values*"
> >>> > > > > >>> Service
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> commiter
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of
> >>> version
> >>> > > > > >>>>> mismatch
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> or
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>   timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions would
> it
> >>> > > > > >> match?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here is what you actually need to implement at
> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>> application
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lets say we have to call 2 services in the following
> >>> > order:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1,   k2 =>
> >>> v2]
> >>> > > > > >> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>> [k1
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> =>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v1a,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>  k2 => v2a]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3 =>
> >>> v3]
> >>> > > > > >> to
> >>> > > > > >>>> [k2
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> =>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> v2ab,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> k3 => v3b]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> The change
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    from [ k1 => v1,   k2 => v2,     k3 => v3   ]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>    to     [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> must happen in a single transaction.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Optimistic protocol to solve this:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is a
> >>> unique
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> orchestrator
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> TX
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all
> the
> >>> > > > > >>> services.
> >>> > > > > >>>>> If
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> `otx`
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> is
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> set to some value it means that it is an
> intermediate
> >>> key
> >>> > > > > >> and
> >>> > > > > >>>> is
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> visible
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> only inside of some transaction, for the finalized
> key
> >>> > > > > >> `otx`
> >>> > > > > >>>> must
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> be
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> null -
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it means the key is committed and visible for
> >>> everyone.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Each cache value must have a field `ver` which is a
> >>> > version
> >>> > > > > >>> of
> >>> > > > > >>>>> that
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> value.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way is
> >>> to use
> >>> > > > > >>>> UUID.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Workflow is the following:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction with
> >>> `otx`
> >>> > > > > >> =
> >>> > > > > >>> x
> >>> > > > > >>>>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> passes
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> this parameter to all the services.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service A:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does some computations
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a]  with TTL = Za
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>      where
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX
> >>> duration
> >>> > > > > >>>> after
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Service
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> A
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> end
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field
> >>> `otx` =
> >>> > > > > >> x
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>          v2a has updated version `ver`
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - returns a set of updated keys and all the old
> >>> versions
> >>> > > > > >> to
> >>> > > > > >>>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> orchestrator
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       or just stores it in some special atomic cache
> >>> like
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service B:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because it
> >>> knows
> >>> > > > > >>>> `otx`
> >>> > > > > >>>>> =
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> x
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does computations
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1 ->
> >>> ver1,
> >>> > > > > >> k2
> >>> > > > > >>>> ->
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> ver2,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> k3
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Service Committer (may be embedded into
> Orchestrator):
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - takes all the updated keys and versions for `otx`
> =
> >>> x
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in a single transaction checks value versions for
> >>> all
> >>> > > > > >> the
> >>> > > > > >>>> old
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> values
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>       and replaces them with calculated new ones
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just
> >>> rollbacks
> >>> > > > > >>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> signals
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>        to Orchestrator to restart the job with new
> >>> `otx`
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> PROFIT!!
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This approach even allows you to run independent
> >>> parts of
> >>> > > > > >> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>> graph
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> parallel (with TX transfer you will always run only
> >>> one at
> >>> > > > > >> a
> >>> > > > > >>>>> time).
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Also
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> it
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> does not require inventing any special fault
> tolerance
> >>> > > > > >>> technics
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> because
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all the
> >>> > > > > >>>> intermediate
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> results
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> are virtually invisible and stored with TTL, thus in
> >>> case
> >>> > > > > >> of
> >>> > > > > >>>> any
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> crash
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Okay, we are open for proposals on business task. I
> >>> mean,
> >>> > > > > >>> we
> >>> > > > > >>>>> can
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> make
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> use
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of some other thing, not distributed transaction.
> Not
> >>> > > > > >>>>> transaction
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> yet.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> vozerov@gridgain.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi
> >>> already
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> mentioned,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> problem is far more complex, than simply passing
> TX
> >>> > > > > >> state
> >>> > > > > >>>>> over
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> a
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wire.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Most
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> probably a kind of coordinator will be required
> >>> still
> >>> > > > > >> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>> manage
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> all
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> kinds
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of failures. This task should be started with
> clean
> >>> > > > > >>> design
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> proposal
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> explaining how we handle all these concurrent
> >>> events.
> >>> > > > > >> And
> >>> > > > > >>>>> only
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> then,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> when
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we understand all implications, we should move to
> >>> > > > > >>>> development
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> stage.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY
> KUZNETSOV
> >>> <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes
> some
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> predefined
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> graph
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed services to be invoked, calls them
> by
> >>> > > > > >>> some
> >>> > > > > >>>>> kind
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> of
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> RPC
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> passes the needed parameters between them,
> right?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is a custom thing. He is
> responsible
> >>> > > > > >>> for
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> managing
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> business
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in
> >>> > > > > >>>> scenarios.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> They
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> exchange
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> data
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and folow one another. If you acquinted with
> BPMN
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> framework,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> so
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing
> >>> > > > > >> from
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> Microsoft
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> or
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> your
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> custom
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-house software?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers
> >>> > > > > >>> which
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> fulfills
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> custom
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN
> >>> > > > > >>>> process)
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> which
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Orchestrator.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, *server1  *creates *variable A
> >>> > > > > >>>> *with
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> value
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> persists
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and
> >>> > > > > >> sends
> >>> > > > > >>>> it
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> to*
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> server2.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> *The
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latests receives *variable B*, do some logic
> >>> > > > > >>> with
> >>> > > > > >>>>> it
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> stores
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IGNITE.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the work made by both servers must be
> >>> > > > > >>>> fulfilled
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> in
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> *one*
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because we need all information done, or
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> nothing(rollbacked).
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is managed by orchestrator.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, it is not a business case, it is your
> >>> > > > > >>> wrong
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> solution
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> for
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets try again, what is the business case?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> >>> > > > > >> KUZNETSOV
> >>> > > > > >>> <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The case is the following, One starts
> >>> > > > > >>>>> transaction
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> one
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this transaction in another jvm node(or
> >>> > > > > >>>>> rollback
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> it
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> remotely).
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>> Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because even if you make it work for
> >>> > > > > >> some
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> simplistic
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ready
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write many fault tolerance tests and
> >>> > > > > >> make
> >>> > > > > >>>>> sure
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> that
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> TXs
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gracefully
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all modes in case of crashes. Also
> >>> > > > > >>> make
> >>> > > > > >>>>> sure
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> we
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance drops after all your
> >>> > > > > >> changes
> >>> > > > > >>> in
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> existing
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benchmarks.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe these conditions will
> >>> > > > > >> be
> >>> > > > > >>>> met
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> your
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better solution to what problem?
> >>> > > > > >> Sending
> >>> > > > > >>> TX
> >>> > > > > >>>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> another
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> node?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement itself is already wrong. What
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> business
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> case
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> you
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve? I'm sure everything you need can
> >>> > > > > >>> be
> >>> > > > > >>>>> done
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> in
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> much
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> more
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient way at the application level.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> >>> > > > > >>>> KUZNETSOV
> >>> > > > > >>>>> <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why wrong ? You know the better
> >>> > > > > >>> solution?
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>> Vladykin <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just serializing TX object and
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> deserializing
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> it
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> on
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> another
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, because other nodes
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> participating
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> in
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> TX
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the new coordinator. This will
> >>> > > > > >>> require
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> protocol
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitely
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have fault tolerance and
> >>> > > > > >> performance
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> issues.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> IMO
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it makes no sense to waste time
> >>> > > > > >>> on
> >>> > > > > >>>>> it.
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sergi
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY
> >>> > > > > >>>>>> KUZNETSOV
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTransactionState
> >>> > > > > >>>> implememntation
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> contains
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IgniteTxEntry's
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be transferable
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32,
> >>> > > > > >>> Dmitriy
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Setrakyan
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> <
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds a little scary to me
> >>> > > > > >>> that
> >>> > > > > >>>>> we
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>> are
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> passing
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
> >>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects
> >>>
> >>> --
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message