[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-590?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12629234#action_12629234
]
Craig Russell commented on JDO-590:
-----------------------------------
> Maybe ought to be consistent, so change the PMF ones to be
> void setTransactionIsolationLevel(String);
And I thought I was the only one who liked long names ;-) I have no objection
to rationalizing names using the longer proposed name.
> Agree with all of obvious behaviour wrt ability to change isolation. What is
> "higher" in the sense of a level? Serializable = highest ?
Yes, I ordered the TX_ constants in order from lowest (TX_READ_UNCOMMITTED) to
highest (TX_SERIALIZABLE).
> What if the user requests an isolation level and the datastore doesn't
> support that, and there isn't a "higher" one ... choose the "highest"
> supported level?
I think throwing an exception is probably the right thing to do. Portable
applications just shouldn't get bizarre behavior if the isolation level they
want isn't available. Put another way, wouldn't the application developer be
better off knowing that the application won't run correctly?
> Control over transaction isolation level
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: JDO-590
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-590
> Project: JDO
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: api2, api2-legacy, specification, tck2, tck2-legacy
> Reporter: Andy Jefferson
> Assignee: Craig Russell
> Fix For: JDO 2 maintenance release 2
>
>
> There are 2 sides to this :-
> 1). Standardising a mechanism for specifying the transaction isolation level.
> This is the primary thing I am referring to, and to do that we need to
> provide a notional
> set of isolation levels - not necessarily just the JDBC set, but that was the
> start point as a basis for comment. As mentioned in other docs (see
> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~poneil/iso.pdf )
> the JDBC set is not complete for our scope, and other totally valid levels
> should be part of it. In some parts
> of the JDO interface (e.g value generation) we define some values, and then
> allow implementations to add on their own additional values if not catered
> for in the defined list. This is what I would envisage. Suggested levels
> NONE, READ_UNCOMMITTED, READ_COMMITTED, NO_LOST_UPDATES, REPEATABLE_READ,
> SERIALIZABLE
> 2). Standardising support for these levels in the JDO implementation, so that
> the user is always guaranteed to be able to use what they specify. I'm not
> proposing this at all, and see that as unrealistic for an impl to provide
> anyway. I simply propose that if an underlying datastore doesn't support the
> level specified then we throw an exception, hence the user always knows if
> their isolation level is going to be used. This is very much in line with
> other parts of the JDO spec where the implementation is free to support some
> or all of the valid values.
> Obviously, where the underlying datastore supports multiple levels then it
> provides value for the user. Similarly where the underlying datastore
> supports only a single level then it is something that user would have no
> need to change.
> jdo-dev mailing list : Christian Romberg wrote
> we have to distinguish optimistic and datastore transactions in this
> discussion, and also what we want to achieve. Personally I think, we want to
> provide some behaviour guarantees of the API. Unfortunately, this is not the
> approach used by SQL for defining isolation levels.
> So for datastore transactions it simply does not work, because one backend
> might be a versioning database while another is a non-versioning database,
> and the behaviour will be totally different, although both guarantee the same
> isolation level.
> On the other hand with JDO optimistic transactions, the behaviour is quite
> consistent right now (unless flushing is involved), but only a two levels
> make sense: READ_UNCOMMITTED NO_LOST_UPDATES
> all other levels are either unachievable or implicitly overachieved.
> However, if we want to provide REPEATABLE_READ, then we could do so in that
> we implicitly include all read (but not modified) objects in the set of
> objects checked for modifications at commit time.
> Currently a user can do that, by calling "makeTransactional" on read objects.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
