jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Felix Röthenbacher <felix.roethenbac...@wyona.com>
Subject Re: Transaction and locks
Date Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:37:46 GMT
David Nuescheler wrote:
>>When you commit the transaction, the transaction manager will call
>>commit on both sA and sB. If sA fails to commit (and it will not fail
>>until sA and sB are in prepared state because prepare() is a
>>no-op at the moment) it is impossible to rollback the transaction as
>>sA AND sB are both instructed to commit by the transaction manager.
>>I hope you see my point now. For me, ACIDity seems very highly
> i think we all agree that the current in implementation 
> with the no-op in the prepare is "suboptimal" to put it 
> in a nicely.
> if that's your concern (which i assume everybody shares), 
> my question is why didn't you just put that is response 
> to dominique's answer, in that other thread?
> i think we would all have agreed, case closed.
> what was confusing me was that i have no idea 
> what this has to do with locking or the spec then?

What was confusing me was your statement that, to quote:

"... of course locking can easily be part of a global transaction."

Now you agree that this is not the case.

It was by no means my intention to waste your time, so please
accept my apology. I was just reasoning about how transactions
should be used in jackrabbit. A big thanks to Dominique for
the transaction stuff as it is really hard to tackle it down.

To quote you once again: "... case closd." ;-)


> regards,
> david

View raw message