+1 Dňa pi 2. 8. 2024, 12:02 Alex Porcelli <[email protected]> napísal(a):
> +1 > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 4:09 AM Pere Fernandez (apache) < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > +1 to transactions! > > > > On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 at 08:39, Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < > > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > * Transactions* > > > This document describes how to support transactions in the domain of > > > workflow engine and subsystems. > > > > > > The use cases for transactions in workflows is to enable consistency > > > during workflow executions. > > > > > > * Constraints * > > > > > > The constraints for this are related to different types of transaction > > > problems: > > > > > > Workflow transaction execution should be in one single transaction > > > (until idle elements are reached or there are no more elements to > > > process) > > > > > > Process state should be consistent in storage in one single > > > transaction. In the case of database multiple tables should be written > > > in an atomic transaction > > > > > > Reactive code should be removed as it does not behave properly with > > > transactions. > > > > > > Transactions Policy among workflow runtime and subsystems should be > > > consistent in terms of configuration (no subcomponent should start a > > > transaction if there is already one on the go, but they should mandate > > > to be in a transaction) > > > > > > Error handling should still produce an event that can be stored. > > > > > > Subsystems execution should be included during transactions > > > > > > Async execution will spawn its own transaction. > > > > > > * Architecture * > > > > > > The architecture of the solution impacts some areas: > > > > > > Components with reactive that are involved in transaction refactor. So > > > far, the only subsystem using reactive code job service. > > > > > > Process Code generation should change in order to reflect the > > > transactions of the workflow engine > > > > > > Error handling should be modified in a way the error is captured > > > outside the transaction and handled in a different one to avoid event > > > loss. > > > > > > Exchange information among runtime and subsystems should be in a way > > > that those elements are involved in a transaction or they can be > > > rolled back. At the moment the communication is being done with a rest > > > call that is not part of the transaction and cannot be rolled back. > > > > > > Events produced within the transaction should be part of the > > > transaction as well to avoid phantom events (events producing during > > > workflow execution that are sent at the end of the unit of work) > > > > > > * Risk Assessment * > > > > > > The risks identified for this work are the following: > > > > > > Error handling can be problematic depending where we set the > > > boundaries of the transaction. There are two different approaches: > > > > > > Boilerplate code for each task to start / commit / rollback the > > > transaction and deail with error in the rest call tier itself > > > > > > Use the runtime environment to install error handling for doing the > > > operation. > > > > > > Exchange information among systems in a non-transactional way. There > > > are a couple of approaches > > > > > > Install every time a transaction sync listener whenever the rest call > > > is made against the subsystem and doing a compensation when it fails > > > > > > Wrap the rest call in a XAResource that can be enlisted in the > > transaction. > > > > > > The use of Kafka clients for stream that does not belong to the > > > transactions > > > > > > Wrap with XAResource (Kafka client support transactions, but does not > > > offer XAresource) > > > > > > Install a transaction sync for each transaction. > > > > > > Performance impact with transactions. > > > > > > Different transaction methods in quarkus and spring boot > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >
