All the services do not update key in place, but only generate new keys
augmented by otx and store the updated value in the same cache + remember
the keys and versions participating in the transaction in some separate
atomic cache.
Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache contents by each Service:
Initial cache contents:
[k1 => v1]
[k2 => v2]
[k3 => v3]
Cache contents after Service A:
[k1 => v1]
[k2 => v2]
[k3 => v3]
[k1x => v1a]
[k2x => v2a]
+ [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some separate atomic cache
Cache contents after Service B:
[k1 => v1]
[k2 => v2]
[k3 => v3]
[k1x => v1a]
[k2x => v2ab]
[k3x => v3b]
+ [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in some separate
atomic cache
Finally the Committer Service takes this map of updated keys and their
versions from some separate atomic cache, starts Ignite transaction and
replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken from k*x keys. The
successful result must be the following:
[k1 => v1a]
[k2 => v2ab]
[k3 => v3b]
[k1x => v1a]
[k2x => v2ab]
[k3x => v3b]
+ [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in some separate
atomic cache
But Committer Service also has to check that no one updated the original
values before us, because otherwise we can not give any serializability
guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here we may need to check not
only versions of the updated keys, but also versions of any other keys end
result depends on.
After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup (may be outside of the
committing tx) to come to the following final state:
[k1 => v1a]
[k2 => v2ab]
[k3 => v3b]
Makes sense?
Sergi
2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>:
> - what do u mean by saying "
> *in a single transaction checks value versions for all the old values
> and replaces them with calculated new ones *"? Every time you change
> value(in some service), you store it to *some special atomic cache* , so
> when all services ceased working, Service commiter got a values with the
> last versions.
> - After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and values*" Service commiter
> persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
> - I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of version mismatch or TX
> timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions would it match?
>
>
> ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Ok, here is what you actually need to implement at the application level.
> >
> > Lets say we have to call 2 services in the following order:
> > - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] to [k1 =>
> v1a,
> > k2 => v2a]
> > - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3 => v3] to [k2 =>
> v2ab,
> > k3 => v3b]
> >
> > The change
> > from [ k1 => v1, k2 => v2, k3 => v3 ]
> > to [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
> > must happen in a single transaction.
> >
> >
> > Optimistic protocol to solve this:
> >
> > Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is a unique orchestrator TX
> > identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all the services. If `otx`
> is
> > set to some value it means that it is an intermediate key and is visible
> > only inside of some transaction, for the finalized key `otx` must be
> null -
> > it means the key is committed and visible for everyone.
> >
> > Each cache value must have a field `ver` which is a version of that
> value.
> >
> > For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way is to use UUID.
> >
> > Workflow is the following:
> >
> > Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction with `otx` = x and passes
> > this parameter to all the services.
> >
> > Service A:
> > - does some computations
> > - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a] with TTL = Za
> > where
> > Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX duration after Service
> A
> > end
> > k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field `otx` = x
> > v2a has updated version `ver`
> > - returns a set of updated keys and all the old versions to the
> > orchestrator
> > or just stores it in some special atomic cache like
> > [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
> >
> > Service B:
> > - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because it knows `otx` = x
> > - does computations
> > - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
> > - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3
> > -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
> >
> > Service Committer (may be embedded into Orchestrator):
> > - takes all the updated keys and versions for `otx` = x
> > [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> > - in a single transaction checks value versions for all the old values
> > and replaces them with calculated new ones
> > - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
> > - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just rollbacks and signals
> > to Orchestrator to restart the job with new `otx`
> >
> > PROFIT!!
> >
> > This approach even allows you to run independent parts of the graph in
> > parallel (with TX transfer you will always run only one at a time). Also
> it
> > does not require inventing any special fault tolerance technics because
> > Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all the intermediate results
> > are virtually invisible and stored with TTL, thus in case of any crash
> you
> > will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
> >
> > Sergi
> >
> >
> > 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Okay, we are open for proposals on business task. I mean, we can make
> use
> > > of some other thing, not distributed transaction. Not transaction yet.
> > >
> > > ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:
> > >
> > > > IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi already mentioned,
> the
> > > > problem is far more complex, than simply passing TX state over a
> wire.
> > > Most
> > > > probably a kind of coordinator will be required still to manage all
> > kinds
> > > > of failures. This task should be started with clean design proposal
> > > > explaining how we handle all these concurrent events. And only then,
> > when
> > > > we understand all implications, we should move to development stage.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Right
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
> > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes some predefined
> graph
> > of
> > > > > > distributed services to be invoked, calls them by some kind of
> RPC
> > > and
> > > > > > passes the needed parameters between them, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > orchestrator is a custom thing. He is responsible for managing
> > > > business
> > > > > > > scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in scenarios. They
> > > exchange
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > and folow one another. If you acquinted with BPMN framework, so
> > > > > > > orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
> > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing from Microsoft or
> > > your
> > > > > > custom
> > > > > > > > in-house software?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers which fulfills
> > > custom
> > > > > > logic.
> > > > > > > > > This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN process) which
> > > > > controlled
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > Orchestrator.
> > > > > > > > > For instance, *server1 *creates *variable A *with value 1,
> > > > > persists
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and sends it to*
> > server2.
> > > > > *The
> > > > > > > > > latests receives *variable B*, do some logic with it and
> > stores
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > IGNITE.
> > > > > > > > > All the work made by both servers must be fulfilled in
> *one*
> > > > > > > transaction.
> > > > > > > > > Because we need all information done, or
> nothing(rollbacked).
> > > The
> > > > > > > > scenario
> > > > > > > > > is managed by orchestrator.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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*
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > >
> > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > *Best Regards,*
> > >
> > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > >
> >
> --
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
>
