ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: IGNITE-4188, savepoints with atomic cache?
Date Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:20:32 GMT
+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
View raw message