ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitrii Ryabov <somefire...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: IGNITE-4188, savepoints with atomic cache?
Date Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:25:37 GMT
Ok, go #1. I'll create ticket for defaults change and make appropriate
changes in current PR with link to new ticket.

2018-06-14 10:56 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Karachentsev <dkarachentsev@gridgain.com>:

> I would vote for 1 or 3 (this I like more), but not 2 as such breaking
> change involves more pain to our users. Let it be in 3.0 and included in
> migration guide, I don't see much drawbacks here.
>
> Thanks!
>
> 13.06.2018 19:20, Ivan Rakov пишет:
>
> +1 to Eduard.
>>
>> It's a reasonable change, but we can't just break working code of all the
>> guys that access atomic caches in their transactions. If we try, we will
>> end up with another emergency release.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Ivan Rakov
>>
>> On 13.06.2018 19:13, Eduard Shangareev wrote:
>>
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> I believe, that it's not the case when we should change default
>>> behaviour.
>>> So, #1 and make it default in 3.0.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Dmitrii Ryabov <somefireone@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Vote for #2. I think no one will change this defaults in configuration in
>>>> #1.
>>>>
>>>> 2018-06-13 18:29 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <av@apache.org>:
>>>>
>>>> Vote for #2 since it can shed light on hidden bug at production.
>>>>>
>>>>> ср, 13 июн. 2018 г. в 18:10, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>
>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>> :
>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bumping up this discussion. The fix has been implemented and it is
>>>>>> fine
>>>>>> from the technical point of view, but since the fix did not make
it to
>>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ignite 2.0, the implemented fix [1] now will be a breaking change
for
>>>>>> current Ignite users.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see the following options:
>>>>>> 1) Have the fix merged, but do not change the defaults - atomic caches
>>>>>>
>>>>> will
>>>>>
>>>>>> still be allowed in transactions by default and only configuration
>>>>>>
>>>>> change
>>>>
>>>>> will make Ignite throw exceptions in this case
>>>>>> 2) Have the fix merged as is and describe this change in the release
>>>>>>
>>>>> notes
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) Postpone the fix until Ignite 3.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would vote for option #1 and change only the defaults in Ignite
3.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2313
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ср, 5 апр. 2017 г. в 22:53, Дмитрий Рябов <somefireone@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IGNITE-2313 done, can you review it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1709/files
>>>>>>> JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2313
>>>>>>> CI: http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=
>>>>>>> IgniteTests_RatJavadoc&branch_IgniteTests=pull%2F1709%
>>>>>>> 2Fhead&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2017-03-29 20:58 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I get lost in tickets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, IGNITE-2313 has to be completed in 2.0 if we want to
makes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this
>>>>
>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 2017, at 2:12 AM, Дмитрий Рябов <
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> somefireone@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Savepoints marked for 2.1, exceptions for 2.0. Do you
want me to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>
>>>>>> exceptions first?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-29 11:24 GMT+03:00 Дмитрий Рябов
<somefireone@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Finish savepoints or flag&exceptions for atomic operations?
>>>>>>>>>> Not sure about savepoints. Exceptions - yes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.
>>>>>
>>>>>> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2313 isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2017-03-29 2:12 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we want to make the exception based approach the
default one
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> task has to be released in 2.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Ryabov, do you think you can finish it
(dev, review,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> QA)
>>>>
>>>>> by
>>>>>
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> code freeze data (April 14)?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> —
>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Sergi Vladykin
<
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think updating an Atomic cache from within
a transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> sense. For example for some kind of operations
logging and so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> forth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that this can be error prone and
forbidden by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> default.
>>>>
>>>>> I
>>>>>
>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yakov that by default we should throw an
exception and have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>
>>>>>> kind
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> flag (on cache or on TX?) to be able to explicitly
enable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>
>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree, this sounds like a good idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>

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