ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: distributed transaction of non-single coordinator
Date Thu, 29 Jun 2017 11:54:18 GMT
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
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around. Such object may contain
>> > > > > >>> all
>> > > > > >>>>>> sorts
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be passed across, we
>> > > > > >>>> should
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> create a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> special
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transfer
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:10
>> > > > > >> AM,
>> > > > > >>>>>> ALEKSEY
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well, there a couple of
>> > > > > >> issues
>> > > > > >>>>>>> preventing
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceeding.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At first, After transaction
>> > > > > >>>>>>> serialization
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserialization
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remote
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server, there is no txState.
>> > > > > >> So
>> > > > > >>>> im
>> > > > > >>>>>>> going
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> put
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >> writeExternal()\readExternal()
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last one is Deserialized
>> > > > > >>>>>>> transaction
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> lacks
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cache
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field at
>> > > > > >> TransactionProxyImpl.
>> > > > > >>>>>> Perhaps,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> must
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> injected
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GridResourceProcessor ?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 17:27,
>> > > > > >>>>> ALEKSEY
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> KUZNETSOV
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alkuznetsov.sb@gmail.com
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while starting and
>> > > > > >> continuing
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> transaction
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jvms
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serialization exception in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> writeExternalMeta
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Override public void
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> writeExternal(ObjectOutput
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throws
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOException
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    writeExternalMeta(out);
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some meta is cannot be
>> > > > > >>>>> serialized.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в
>> > > > > >> 17:25,
>> > > > > >>>>> Alexey
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Goncharuk <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksey,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I am starting to
>> > > > > >> get
>> > > > > >>>> what
>> > > > > >>>>>> you
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> want,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> but I
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - What is the API for the
>> > > > > >>>>> proposed
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> change?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of transaction
>> > > > > >>> created
>> > > > > >>>>> on
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ignite(0)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignite(1). This is
>> > > > > >> obviously
>> > > > > >>>> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> possible
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (multi-jvm) environment.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - How will you synchronize
>> > > > > >>>> cache
>> > > > > >>>>>>> update
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> actions
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commit?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Say, you have one node that
>> > > > > >>>>> decided
>> > > > > >>>>>>> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> commit,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing within this
>> > > > > >>>> transaction.
>> > > > > >>>>>> How
>> > > > > >>>>>>> do
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> make
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> --
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>
-- 

*Best Regards,*

*Kuznetsov Aleksey*

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