> avoid any thread based control of transactions... > single thread will be able to work with any amount of > transactions at the same time
Yes, and one TX can be used by many threads, which is demonstrated by testTxAsync. I completely agree with this approach. Ok, let's see what others say about "runInTransaction". On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 6:51 PM Alexei Scherbakov < alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > Pavel, > > "runInTransaction" is supposed to provide an "old-fashioned" way to write a > transaction for easier migration. > > Manual enlisting of tables is required, because I strive to avoid any > thread based control of transactions in Ignite 3. > > Actually, a single thread will be able to work with any amount of > transactions at the same time. > > I would keep it for convenience, but let's see other opinions. > > > > > > > вт, 13 июл. 2021 г. в 18:22, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > Alexei, > > > > The API looks good to me, except "runInTransaction", which I find > > confusing. > > > > It looks like every operation performed by the passed Consumer will be > > automatically enlisted in a transaction, > > but, looking at tests, "withTx" call is still required inside the > Consumer. > > > > I don't think we need this method at all, it barely provides any > > convenience but may confuse some users. > > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 4:43 PM Alexei Scherbakov < > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > I've prepared a PR implementing my vision of public transactions API. > > > > > > API is very simple and similar to Ignite 2, but has some differences. > > > > > > More details can be found here [1] > > > > > > Share your thoughts. > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15086 > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > Alexei Scherbakov >
