[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-747?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15246555#comment-15246555
 ] 

Tilmann Zäschke commented on JDO-747:
-------------------------------------

Just to clarify, I think there are something missing from the spec:

The following is already specified for normal {{refresh()}}:
{{PERSISTENT_NONTRANSACTIONAL_DIRTY}} -> {{UNCHANGED}}
{{DETACHED_CLEAN}} -> {{ERROR}}
{{DETACHED_DIRTY}} -> {{ERROR}}

I would suggest that in case an object has been deleted in the DS, the 
following transition may be useful (and would be consistent with 
{{PERSISTENT_DIRTY}} and {{PERSISTENT_NONTRANSACTIONAL}}):
{{PERSISTENT_NONTRANSACTIONAL_DIRTY}} -> {{TRANSIENT}}


> Behavior of delete() with multiple concurrent Transactions
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: JDO-747
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-747
>             Project: JDO
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: specification
>    Affects Versions: JDO 3.1
>            Reporter: Tilmann Zäschke
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: concurrency, delete, documentation, refresh(), 
> specification
>             Fix For: JDO 3.2
>
>         Attachments: JDO-StateTransition-logs-2015-12-04.zip, 
> OptimisticCheckConsistency.java, OptimisticFailurePatch_JDO747.txt, 
> StateTransitionPatch_JDO747_v4.txt
>
>
> In the Spec I could not find any statement regarding on how a transaction 
> should behave if an object is deleted in a different concurrent transaction.
> Related Sections are Section 5.8 (how different methods should behave for 
> different object states) and Section 12.6.1 (the behavior of refresh() and 
> related methods).
> For example I wonder about the following situations. Suppose I have two 
> optimistic sessions, pm1 and pm2, both access the same object. pm1 deletes 
> the object and commits. Then what happens in pm2 if:
> 1. pm2 deletes the object and tries to commit, should that work? It's
>    wouldn't be a real conflict if both delete it.
> 2. pm2 modifies the object (make dirty) and calls {{refresh()}}. Should I
>    get an {{ObjectNotFound}} exception?
> 3. pm2 deletes the object and calls {{refresh()}}. According to the spec,
>    {{refresh()}} should not change the object's state. But should it
>    still fail with {{ObjectNotFound}}? If refresh should fail, how can I
>    ever recover from such a situation, because I can't undelete the
>    object?
> Is there a common understanding how this should work? 
> IF there an external definition JDO relies on, then I think a reference to an 
> external document might useful.
> If not, should the Spec define concurrent behavior?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to