My vote was to implement said solution.
But it is a HUGE +1 to continue the discussion to resolve the issue
identified!
--Udo
On 3/25/20 4:14 PM, Jason Huynh wrote:
I put some comments on the proposal on the wiki.
btw what are we voting on? Just curious as I wasn't sure if we were voting
for the current proposal or whether we should continue this discussion?
I like the idea of having transactional ops be sent together in a batch if
possible and it would be an iterative improvement, whether that is a
complete solution to a larger problem, I think might be beyond what Alberto
was proposing?
Again I am not exactly sure if this was intended to be a vote but I
would +1 the attempt and continuation of the discussion/proposal and
probably -0 the current proposal as there are some ideas/things to iron
out.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:49 PM Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlme...@pivotal.io> wrote:
Hi there Alberto,
It's a "-1" from me.
I have raised my concerns in the RFC comments. To summarize, whilst I
like the idea (I had never thought of that problem you are trying to
solve), I don't know how this will behave at scale. Just looking at some
of the comments, I think it is safe to say that many have similar feelings.
I like the notion of this proposal, but I'm not convinced that the
solution is actually going solve the problem. I think it might solve
only a very small part of the problem.
In essence you are proposing a distributed transaction over WAN and I
don't see enough in the proposal to convince me that we have a solution
that will solve this problem.
--Udo
On 3/25/20 8:04 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote:
Hi,
Could you please review the RFC for "Gateway sender to deliver
transaction events atomically to receivers"?
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Gw+sender+to+deliver+transaction+events+atomically+to+receivers
Deadline for comments is Wednesday, April 1st, 2020,
Thanks,
Alberto G.
