> On 2012-04-10 00:01:17, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> > Thanks for the patch Brock. I think what this patch does is forces a state 
> > transition on close no matter what. This has the potential of covering up 
> > for programmatic problems that could lead to resource/tx leaks in the 
> > system which I feel should not happen. If a component is buggy, the other 
> > components around it should not try to coverup.
> > 
> > Another way to look at it is - the close() method should not throw an 
> > exception ever. This can be further reinforced by having a thread local 
> > transaction that is discarded on close.
> 
> Brock Noland wrote:
>     I can agree with that.
>     
>     The new code would do the state transition (which means a new transaction 
> is gotten on getTransaction()) and then call doClose(). Correct?
> 
> Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
>     My view on it is that there are two parts to this problem:
>     
>     1. If someone calls close() when the tx is not in the correct state, that 
> should fail with an exception. This signals a bad/buggy implementation that 
> should be identified aggressively and fixed.
>     
>     2. If someone calls close() when the tx is in the correct state, that 
> should never fail. This will ensure that good code is not penalized for 
> implementation issues of the tx provider.
>     
>
> 
> Brock Noland wrote:
>     In my understanding from the email chain "Channel/Transaction States" was 
> that like a DB statement, you should be able to call close() should be safe 
> to call at any point in time. If work is uncommitted that work is thrown 
> away. 
>     
>     If we require rollback or commit to be called before close, then every 
> source/sink needs to catch Throwable, call rollback and rethrow so that close 
> can be called in the finally block. Thoughts?
> 
> Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
>     The use of transaction must be done in an idiomatic manner as described 
> in it's api:
>     
>      * Channel ch = ...
>      * Transaction tx = ch.getTransaction();
>      * try {
>      *   tx.begin();
>      *   ...
>      *   // ch.put(event) or ch.take()
>      *   ...
>      *   tx.commit();
>      * } catch (Exception ex) {
>      *   tx.rollback();
>      *   ...
>      * } finally {
>      *   tx.close();
>      * } 
>     
>     If the caller is using this idiom, then it is a guarantee that the state 
> transition will occur correctly, and that for every begin there is a close. 
> As you can see from this idiom, the close should not be throwing an exception 
> (and implicitly the begin too).
> 
> Brock Noland wrote:
>     The issue with the idom above is that if anything is thrown which not an 
> Exception (e.g. subclass of Error), an exception will be thrown in the 
> finally clause and that more serious problem will be eaten. The only way this 
> can been handled is:
>     
>     * boolean readyForClose = false;
>      * Channel ch = ...
>      * Transaction tx = ch.getTransaction();
>      * try {
>      *   tx.begin();
>      *   ...
>      *   // ch.put(event) or ch.take()
>      *   ...
>      *   tx.commit();
>      *   readyForClose = true;
>      * } catch (Exception ex) {
>      *   tx.rollback();
>      *   readyForClose = true;
>      *   ...
>      * } finally {
>      *   if(readyForClose) {
>      *    tx.close();
>      *  } else {
>      *    tx.rollback();
>      *    tx.close();
>      * } 
>     
>     It seems quite a lot of effort to push on our users and is quite bug 
> prone.

Or as an alternative to the above you can catch Error, rollback and then 
re-throw...


- Brock


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/4655/#review6810
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 2012-04-05 03:05:51, Brock Noland wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/4655/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2012-04-05 03:05:51)
> 
> 
> Review request for Flume.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> Allowing the calling of transaction.close() at any point of time.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug FLUME-1089.
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-1089
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> flume-ng-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/BasicTransactionSemantics.java
>  403cbca 
>   
> flume-ng-core/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/channel/TestBasicChannelSemantics.java
>  80020fc 
>   
> flume-ng-core/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/channel/TestMemoryChannelTransaction.java
>  bc81f26 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4655/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Unit tests pass.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Brock
> 
>

Reply via email to