ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From BJ Freeman <bjf...@free-man.net>
Subject Re: Optimistic locking based on timestamps
Date Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:36:16 GMT
read Davids responses.
in short Optimistic locking as a database Function.
Since ofbiz does it own managing of the data, the database itself does 
not have all the info to manage the locking effectively.

Matt Warnock sent the following on 8/13/2010 11:45 PM:
> I'm still a bit confused.  I think I understand the issues, but not why
> so many people are apparently having trouble with them.  Or maybe I
> misunderstand them completely.
> Optimistic locking (as I understand it) is used primarily when editing
> an existing record by hand, since record creation and programmed updates
> can just use transactions, which are better for most operations anyway.
> Most common business cases I can imagine would not usually involve 2
> people editing (not just viewing) the same record at the same time.
> What business scenario causes these apparently common collisions?
> Most high-volume business uses don't edit other people's records.  If I
> enter an e-commerce order for example, I create the header record,
> several line item records, perhaps some other stuff.  Eventually I
> commit the whole order at once, when it is assigned an order number and
> becomes part of the main database, which can all be done in a single
> transaction.
> Others may be entering similar orders, but they are creating different
> header records with different associated line items.  These records
> should all be accumulated into memory-only or temporary tables (I would
> assume) until they are committed to the database, and optimistic locking
> should never really enter into it, as these records are private to the
> user and current session (like an e-commerce shopping cart) until they
> are committed.  If they are abandoned before they commit, they should
> never leave a trace in the main database, as I see it.  Any code that
> updates the record (to total it, apply taxes, figure shipping, or
> whatever) can work in-memory, or in a single transaction on the
> temporary records, until the whole thing is committed.
> If I then go back and edit an order, it is usually one I just recently
> entered, and in most cases, no one else should be using it.  When I do
> that, the optimistic lock code should read the record data and note the
> time that the record was last modified (or the data itself). I then edit
> that data on-screen, and when I commit, it first checks to see that the
> data was not modified in the meantime.  In most cases, it wasn't
> modified, and the new data is written, again within the scope of a
> single transaction.
> If the last-modified date (or the original data) has changed, then a
> collision has occurred, and the system should cancel my commit, because
> I was editing data which has changed while I was editing it, and is now
> stale.  In most cases, any manual edit takes much more than a second, so
> the chance of a time granularity collision on an actual record edit
> seems miniscule. If there is a collision, the system re-reads the
> recently updated data, tells me about the collision, probably discards
> the previous edits, and I can then edit again if necessary.
> It's a poor substitute for an update transaction, but you don't want to
> lock a database up for several minutes while a user edits a record by
> hand, and most transactions will timeout long before the user finishes
> the edit.
> Programmatic data updates like Mike Z describes are much more common,
> but they can usually be managed in a single transaction too.  I don't
> need a lock to calculate a total, enter a timestamp, or similar updates,
> as these can all be done inside an ACID transaction, thereby protected
> from other threads, users, application servers, or whatever.  We can
> even suspend one transaction to run an unrelated one, then resume the
> first, as David suggested earlier in this thread.
> Can you give me an example of the kind of update that leads to the kind
> of concurrency issues you describe?  Is OFBiz using optimistic locks
> where transactions are really required?  Or what about James' inventory
> count scenario prevents using a transaction instead of an optimistic
> lock?  What am I missing?  Just want to know where the big bear traps
> might be.  Thanks in advance.

View raw message