Ok, it is not a business case, it is your wrong solution for it.
Lets try again, what is the business case?
Sergi
2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>:
> The case is the following, One starts transaction in one node, and commit
> this transaction in another jvm node(or rollback it remotely).
>
> вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Because even if you make it work for some simplistic scenario, get ready
> to
> > write many fault tolerance tests and make sure that you TXs work
> gracefully
> > in all modes in case of crashes. Also make sure that we do not have any
> > performance drops after all your changes in existing benchmarks. All in
> all
> > I don't believe these conditions will be met and your contribution will
> be
> > accepted.
> >
> > Better solution to what problem? Sending TX to another node? The problem
> > statement itself is already wrong. What business case you are trying to
> > solve? I'm sure everything you need can be done in a much more simple and
> > efficient way at the application level.
> >
> > Sergi
> >
> > 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Why wrong ? You know the better solution?
> > >
> > > вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> >:
> > >
> > > > Just serializing TX object and deserializing it on another node is
> > > > meaningless, because other nodes participating in the TX have to know
> > > about
> > > > the new coordinator. This will require protocol changes, we
> definitely
> > > will
> > > > have fault tolerance and performance issues. IMO the whole idea is
> > wrong
> > > > and it makes no sense to waste time on it.
> > > >
> > > > Sergi
> > > >
> > > > 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >
> > > > > IgniteTransactionState implememntation contains IgniteTxEntry's
> which
> > > is
> > > > > supposed to be transferable
> > > > >
> > > > > пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It sounds a little scary to me that we are passing transaction
> > > objects
> > > > > > around. Such object may contain all sorts of Ignite context. If
> > some
> > > > data
> > > > > > needs to be passed across, we should create a special transfer
> > object
> > > > in
> > > > > > this case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:10 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > well, there a couple of issues preventing transaction
> proceeding.
> > > > > > > At first, After transaction serialization and deserialization
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > remote
> > > > > > > server, there is no txState. So im going to put it in
> > > > > > > writeExternal()\readExternal()
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The last one is Deserialized transaction lacks of shared cache
> > > > context
> > > > > > > field at TransactionProxyImpl. Perhaps, it must be injected by
> > > > > > > GridResourceProcessor ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 17:27, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > while starting and continuing transaction in different jvms
> in
> > > run
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > > serialization exception in writeExternalMeta :
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @Override public void writeExternal(ObjectOutput out) throws
> > > > > > IOException
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > writeExternalMeta(out);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > some meta is cannot be serialized.
> > > > > > > > пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в 17:25, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Aleksey,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think I am starting to get what you want, but I have a few
> > > > > concerns:
> > > > > > > > - What is the API for the proposed change? In your test, you
> > > pass
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > instance of transaction created on ignite(0) to the ignite
> > > instance
> > > > > > > > ignite(1). This is obviously not possible in a truly
> > distributed
> > > > > > > > (multi-jvm) environment.
> > > > > > > > - How will you synchronize cache update actions and
> transaction
> > > > > commit?
> > > > > > > > Say, you have one node that decided to commit, but another
> node
> > > is
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > writing within this transaction. How do you make sure that
> two
> > > > nodes
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > not call commit() and rollback() simultaneously?
> > > > > > > > - How do you make sure that either commit() or rollback() is
> > > > called
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > originator failed?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2017-03-10 15:38 GMT+03:00 Дмитрий Рябов <
> > somefire...@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alexey Goncharuk, heh, my initial understanding was that
> > > > > transferring
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > tx
> > > > > > > > > ownership from one node to another will be happened
> > > automatically
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > originating node is gone down.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2017-03-10 15:36 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Im aiming to span transaction on multiple threads, nodes,
> > > > > > jvms(soon).
> > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > > every node is able to rollback, or commit common
> > > transaction.It
> > > > > > > turned
> > > > > > > > > up i
> > > > > > > > > > need to transfer tx between nodes in order to commit
> > > > transaction
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > different node(in the same jvm).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в 15:20, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Aleksey,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean that you want a concept of transferring of
> tx
> > > > > > ownership
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > one node to another? My initial understanding was that
> > you
> > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > to update keys in a transaction from multiple threads
> in
> > > > > > parallel.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --AG
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-10 15:01 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Well. Consider transaction started in one node, and
> > > > continued
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The following test describes my idea:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite ignite1 = ignite(0);
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteTransactions transactions =
> > ignite1.transactions();
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteCache<String, Integer> cache =
> > > > > ignite1.getOrCreateCache("
> > > > > > > > > > > > testCache");
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Transaction tx = transactions.txStart(concurrency,
> > > > > isolation);
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > cache.put("key1", 1);
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > cache.put("key2", 2);
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > tx.stop();
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteInternalFuture<Boolean> fut =
> > > > GridTestUtils.runAsync(()
> > > > > > ->
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteTransactions ts = ignite(1).transactions();
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertNull(ts.tx());
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.STOPPED,
> > > > > tx.state());
> > > > > > > > > > > > ts.txStart(tx);
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.ACTIVE,
> > > > > tx.state());
> > > > > > > > > > > > cache.put("key3", 3);
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertTrue(cache.remove("key2"));
> > > > > > > > > > > > tx.commit();
> > > > > > > > > > > > return true;
> > > > > > > > > > > > });
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > fut.get();
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.COMMITTED,
> > > > tx.state());
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals((long)1,
> (long)cache.get("key1"));
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals((long)3,
> (long)cache.get("key3"));
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assert.assertFalse(cache.containsKey("key2"));
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In method *ts.txStart(...)* we just rebind *tx* to
> > > current
> > > > > > > thread:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > public void txStart(Transaction tx) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > TransactionProxyImpl transactionProxy =
> > > > > > > > (TransactionProxyImpl)tx;
> > > > > > > > > > > > cctx.tm().reopenTx(transactionProxy.tx());
> > > > > > > > > > > > transactionProxy.bindToCurrentThread();
> > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In method *reopenTx* we alter *threadMap* so that it
> > > binds
> > > > > > > > > transaction
> > > > > > > > > > > > to current thread.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > How do u think about it ?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 7 мар. 2017 г. в 22:38, Denis Magda <
> > > dma...@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please share the rational behind this and the
> > thoughts,
> > > > > > design
> > > > > > > > > ideas
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have in mind.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 2017, at 3:19 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all! Im designing distributed transaction
> which
> > > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > node, and continued at other one. Has anybody
> > > thoughts
> > > > on
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > >
> > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > *Best Regards,*
> > >
> > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > >
> >
> --
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>
