ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ability to check and completely fill transactions on creation
Date Tue, 29 May 2018 17:40:17 GMT
Anton,

We cannot have TransactionStartedEvent without having events for all other
transaction states, like TransactionPreparedEvent,
TransactionCommittedEvent, etc. Considering this, I sill do not like the
design, as we would have to create many extra event classes.

Instead, I would suggest that you create TransactionStateChangeEvent, which
would have previous and new transaction state and would cover all state
changes, not just the start of the transaction. This will make the design
consistent and thorough.

D.

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:39 AM, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org> wrote:

> Dmitriy,
> I fixed design according to your and Yakov's comments, thanks again for
> clear explanation.
>
> >> 1. You use internal API in public event, i.e. you cannot have user
> >> accessing to IgniteInternalTx instance through TxEvent.
>
> Event definition changed to
> public class TransactionStartedEvent extends EventAdapter {
>     private IgniteTransactions tx;
> ...
> }
>
> Not it's 100% public.
>
> >> 2. Throwing runtime errors from listener is not documented and I doubt
> if
> >> it can be fully supported in the pattern you use in TxLabelTest. After
> >> looking at the mentioned test user may think that throwing runtime error
> >> when notified on new node join may prohibit new node joining which is
> not
> >> true. Do you have any example in Ignite when throwing exception from
> >> listener is valid and documented.
>
> Test's logic changed to
> ...
> // Label
> IgniteTransactions tx = evt.tx();
>
> if (tx.label() == null)
> tx.tx().rollback();
> ...
> and
> ...
> // Timeout
> Transaction tx = evt.tx().tx();
>
> if (tx.timeout() < 200)
> tx.rollback();
> ...
>
> So, tx will be rollbacked on creation and any commit attempt will cause
> TransactionRollbackException
>
> Full code listing available at
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4036/files
>
> Dmitriy, Yakov,
> Could you please check and confirm changes?
>
> чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
>
> > Anton, why do you need to *alter* event sub-system to introduce a new
> > event? Yakov's issue was that you propagated private interface to public
> > API, which is bad of course. Come up with a clean design and it will be
> > accepted.
> >
> > My problem with TransactionValidator is that it only solves a small
> problem
> > for transactions. If we do that, then we will have to add cache
> validators,
> > compute validators, etc, etc, etc. That is why we either should use the
> > existing event subsystem or come up with a holistic design that will work
> > across the whole project.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:38 AM, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Dmitriy,
> > >
> > > Yakov is against the solution based on event sub-system
> > > >> I think that we should think about some other solution instead of
> > > altering
> > > >> event sub-system.
> > >
> > > Also, I checked is there any chances to fix all the issues found by
> Yakov
> > > and see that solution becomes overcomplicated in that case.
> > > That's why I'm proposing this lightweight solution.
> > >
> > > As for me it's a good idea to have such validator since that's a common
> > > problem at huge deployments when more than one team have access to
> Ignite
> > > cluster and there is no other way to setup tx cretion rules.
> > >
> > > Yakov,
> > >
> > > Could you please share your thoughts on that?
> > >
> > >
> > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 8:58, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 4:08 AM, Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dmitriy, Yakov
> > > > >
> > > > > Are there any objections to updated design taking into account the
> > > > comments
> > > > > I provided?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anton, I do not like an additional validator. I think you can
> > accomplish
> > > > the same with a transaction event. You just need to design it more
> > > cleanly,
> > > > incorporating the feedback from Yakov.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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