Re: affinityCall in one distributed transaction
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Игорь Г wrote: > Dmitriy, for p.1 we can enroll it in one JTA transaction, yes. > But is there a cheaper way to do it? We have to pick whether we use JTA for this use case at all. If yes, then it should be used across the whole system and no additional development is required. If we do not use JTA, then we need to come up with proper API to support it. > I think in p.2 Anton means that if we > can start ignite transaction on one client node and "join" it on other > client node (by some id) so that all changes made on 2nd client were inside > this transaction it will work much faster. > This is only valid if we decide not to use JTA. Can you please suggest an API here? > > > > > 2016-12-13 12:31 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Антон Чураев > > wrote: > > > > > Using JTA in current implementation Ignite is possible. But it is > > > expensive, because currently Ignite does not support distributed > > > transaction context within all grid. > > > > > > I think it would be right to devide task into two: > > > 1) Add support of switching transactional context between multiple > thread > > > within single instance jvm; > > > > > > > Can you please suggest an API for it? > > > > > > > 2) Using distributed memory for keeping transaction context; > > > > > > > What do you mean by distributed memory here? > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the first one is not so difficult to implement. > > > > > > 2016-12-13 1:29 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > Looking at this sequence, I don't see any way of achieving it other > > than > > > > enrolling all transactions into one JTA transaction. If you seen > > another > > > > way, can you please suggest it here? > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Антон Чураев > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, it's ok > > > > > > > > > > To be abstract simple business transaction for execution payment > > > > > (preparation done before) from the card looks like: > > > > > 1) Create a payment document (cache API); > > > > > 2) Write-off funds from the payer's card; > > > > > 2.1) Change in register #1 (cache API); > > > > > 2.2) Change in register #2 (cache API); > > > > > 2.3) Change in register #... (cache API); > > > > > 2.4) Change limits of card (cache API); > > > > > 3) Payment to service provider; > > > > > 3.1) Change in the balance of business unit having the contract > with > > > > payer > > > > > (cache API); > > > > > 3.2) Change in the balance of business unit having the contract > with > > > > > provider (cache API); > > > > > 3.3) Change in the balance of the account (cache API); > > > > > 3.4.1) Some change in registers... (cache API); > > > > > 3.4.2) ...; > > > > > 3.3) ... > > > > > 3.4) Invoke provider's API for billing payment of payer; > > > > > 4) Formation of financial statements (it's possible to implement > > > > off-line - > > > > > in other transational) > > > > > 4.1) ... > > > > > 4.2) ... > > > > > > > > > > And all steps have been designed into separate microservices. And, > of > > > > > course, it have been designed via asynchronous transport. > > > > > On the other hand it seems to be that implementation of > coordination > > of > > > > > 10-20 local transactions is not a good idea > > > > > > > > > > 2016-12-10 23:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. I am sorry to keep asking questions > on > > > > this. > > > > > > Can you change your example to include concrete Ignite calls on > > > Compute > > > > > or > > > > > > Cache APIs (or other APIs)? I am still struggling to understand > the > > > > > > boundaries between business and Ignite logic. > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Антон Чураев < > > churaev...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > > > > 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. > > > > > > > 2) Some application (like a business transactional coordinator) > > > > > receives > > > > > > > message via asynchronous transport. This application implements > > > logic > > > > > of > > > > > > > calling different services sequentially or in parallel via > > > > asynchronous > > > > > > > transport. > > > > > > > 3) Each service implement some little changes in a cache. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or: > > > > > > > 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. > > > > > > > 2) This transaction is implemented in microservice architecture > > > > (large > > > > > > > number microservices + asynchronous transport). > > > > > > > 3) Each microservice implement some little changes in a cache. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is possible to implement distributed transactional > > using > > > > XA > > > > > > > coordinator outside Ignite and local transaction in each > service.
Re: affinityCall in one distributed transaction
Dmitriy, for p.1 we can enroll it in one JTA transaction, yes. But is there a cheaper way to do it? I think in p.2 Anton means that if we can start ignite transaction on one client node and "join" it on other client node (by some id) so that all changes made on 2nd client were inside this transaction it will work much faster. 2016-12-13 12:31 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Антон Чураев > wrote: > > > Using JTA in current implementation Ignite is possible. But it is > > expensive, because currently Ignite does not support distributed > > transaction context within all grid. > > > > I think it would be right to devide task into two: > > 1) Add support of switching transactional context between multiple thread > > within single instance jvm; > > > > Can you please suggest an API for it? > > > > 2) Using distributed memory for keeping transaction context; > > > > What do you mean by distributed memory here? > > > > > > In my opinion, the first one is not so difficult to implement. > > > > 2016-12-13 1:29 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > Looking at this sequence, I don't see any way of achieving it other > than > > > enrolling all transactions into one JTA transaction. If you seen > another > > > way, can you please suggest it here? > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Антон Чураев > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Dmitriy, it's ok > > > > > > > > To be abstract simple business transaction for execution payment > > > > (preparation done before) from the card looks like: > > > > 1) Create a payment document (cache API); > > > > 2) Write-off funds from the payer's card; > > > > 2.1) Change in register #1 (cache API); > > > > 2.2) Change in register #2 (cache API); > > > > 2.3) Change in register #... (cache API); > > > > 2.4) Change limits of card (cache API); > > > > 3) Payment to service provider; > > > > 3.1) Change in the balance of business unit having the contract with > > > payer > > > > (cache API); > > > > 3.2) Change in the balance of business unit having the contract with > > > > provider (cache API); > > > > 3.3) Change in the balance of the account (cache API); > > > > 3.4.1) Some change in registers... (cache API); > > > > 3.4.2) ...; > > > > 3.3) ... > > > > 3.4) Invoke provider's API for billing payment of payer; > > > > 4) Formation of financial statements (it's possible to implement > > > off-line - > > > > in other transational) > > > > 4.1) ... > > > > 4.2) ... > > > > > > > > And all steps have been designed into separate microservices. And, of > > > > course, it have been designed via asynchronous transport. > > > > On the other hand it seems to be that implementation of coordination > of > > > > 10-20 local transactions is not a good idea > > > > > > > > 2016-12-10 23:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan >: > > > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. I am sorry to keep asking questions on > > > this. > > > > > Can you change your example to include concrete Ignite calls on > > Compute > > > > or > > > > > Cache APIs (or other APIs)? I am still struggling to understand the > > > > > boundaries between business and Ignite logic. > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Антон Чураев < > churaev...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > > > 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. > > > > > > 2) Some application (like a business transactional coordinator) > > > > receives > > > > > > message via asynchronous transport. This application implements > > logic > > > > of > > > > > > calling different services sequentially or in parallel via > > > asynchronous > > > > > > transport. > > > > > > 3) Each service implement some little changes in a cache. > > > > > > > > > > > > Or: > > > > > > 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. > > > > > > 2) This transaction is implemented in microservice architecture > > > (large > > > > > > number microservices + asynchronous transport). > > > > > > 3) Each microservice implement some little changes in a cache. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is possible to implement distributed transactional > using > > > XA > > > > > > coordinator outside Ignite and local transaction in each service. > > But > > > > its > > > > > > cost may be unacceptable especially in the case of using a large > > > number > > > > > of > > > > > > services. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think distributed transaction inside Ignite could be useful > also > > > for > > > > > > using multiple ComputeTask in one transaction. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-12-09 21:45 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like you need a centralized JTA server for this type of > > > > purpose, > > > > > > no? > > > > > > > In that case, Ignite transactions can already merge into > ongoing > > > JTA > > > > > > > transactions. > > > > > > > >
Re: affinityCall in one distributed transaction
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Антон Чураев wrote: > Using JTA in current implementation Ignite is possible. But it is > expensive, because currently Ignite does not support distributed > transaction context within all grid. > > I think it would be right to devide task into two: > 1) Add support of switching transactional context between multiple thread > within single instance jvm; > Can you please suggest an API for it? > 2) Using distributed memory for keeping transaction context; > What do you mean by distributed memory here? > > In my opinion, the first one is not so difficult to implement. > > 2016-12-13 1:29 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > Anton, > > > > Looking at this sequence, I don't see any way of achieving it other than > > enrolling all transactions into one JTA transaction. If you seen another > > way, can you please suggest it here? > > > > D. > > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Антон Чураев > > wrote: > > > > > Dmitriy, it's ok > > > > > > To be abstract simple business transaction for execution payment > > > (preparation done before) from the card looks like: > > > 1) Create a payment document (cache API); > > > 2) Write-off funds from the payer's card; > > > 2.1) Change in register #1 (cache API); > > > 2.2) Change in register #2 (cache API); > > > 2.3) Change in register #... (cache API); > > > 2.4) Change limits of card (cache API); > > > 3) Payment to service provider; > > > 3.1) Change in the balance of business unit having the contract with > > payer > > > (cache API); > > > 3.2) Change in the balance of business unit having the contract with > > > provider (cache API); > > > 3.3) Change in the balance of the account (cache API); > > > 3.4.1) Some change in registers... (cache API); > > > 3.4.2) ...; > > > 3.3) ... > > > 3.4) Invoke provider's API for billing payment of payer; > > > 4) Formation of financial statements (it's possible to implement > > off-line - > > > in other transational) > > > 4.1) ... > > > 4.2) ... > > > > > > And all steps have been designed into separate microservices. And, of > > > course, it have been designed via asynchronous transport. > > > On the other hand it seems to be that implementation of coordination of > > > 10-20 local transactions is not a good idea > > > > > > 2016-12-10 23:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. I am sorry to keep asking questions on > > this. > > > > Can you change your example to include concrete Ignite calls on > Compute > > > or > > > > Cache APIs (or other APIs)? I am still struggling to understand the > > > > boundaries between business and Ignite logic. > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Антон Чураев > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > > 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. > > > > > 2) Some application (like a business transactional coordinator) > > > receives > > > > > message via asynchronous transport. This application implements > logic > > > of > > > > > calling different services sequentially or in parallel via > > asynchronous > > > > > transport. > > > > > 3) Each service implement some little changes in a cache. > > > > > > > > > > Or: > > > > > 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. > > > > > 2) This transaction is implemented in microservice architecture > > (large > > > > > number microservices + asynchronous transport). > > > > > 3) Each microservice implement some little changes in a cache. > > > > > > > > > > I think it is possible to implement distributed transactional using > > XA > > > > > coordinator outside Ignite and local transaction in each service. > But > > > its > > > > > cost may be unacceptable especially in the case of using a large > > number > > > > of > > > > > services. > > > > > > > > > > I think distributed transaction inside Ignite could be useful also > > for > > > > > using multiple ComputeTask in one transaction. > > > > > > > > > > 2016-12-09 21:45 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like you need a centralized JTA server for this type of > > > purpose, > > > > > no? > > > > > > In that case, Ignite transactions can already merge into ongoing > > JTA > > > > > > transactions. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer to see a distributed flow of events to fully > > > understand > > > > > the > > > > > > issue. For example, > > > > > > > > > > > > Client > > > > > > - start transaction > > > > > > - send compute > > > > > > > > > > > > Server > > > > > > - receive compute > > > > > > - execute ... > > > > > > - execute ... > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Антон Чураев < > churaev...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > In some cases it is necessary to implement a transaction > > processing > > > > > logic > > > > > > > in several different app
Re: affinityCall in one distributed transaction
Using JTA in current implementation Ignite is possible. But it is expensive, because currently Ignite does not support distributed transaction context within all grid. I think it would be right to devide task into two: 1) Add support of switching transactional context between multiple thread within single instance jvm; 2) Using distributed memory for keeping transaction context; In my opinion, the first one is not so difficult to implement. 2016-12-13 1:29 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > Anton, > > Looking at this sequence, I don't see any way of achieving it other than > enrolling all transactions into one JTA transaction. If you seen another > way, can you please suggest it here? > > D. > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Антон Чураев > wrote: > > > Dmitriy, it's ok > > > > To be abstract simple business transaction for execution payment > > (preparation done before) from the card looks like: > > 1) Create a payment document (cache API); > > 2) Write-off funds from the payer's card; > > 2.1) Change in register #1 (cache API); > > 2.2) Change in register #2 (cache API); > > 2.3) Change in register #... (cache API); > > 2.4) Change limits of card (cache API); > > 3) Payment to service provider; > > 3.1) Change in the balance of business unit having the contract with > payer > > (cache API); > > 3.2) Change in the balance of business unit having the contract with > > provider (cache API); > > 3.3) Change in the balance of the account (cache API); > > 3.4.1) Some change in registers... (cache API); > > 3.4.2) ...; > > 3.3) ... > > 3.4) Invoke provider's API for billing payment of payer; > > 4) Formation of financial statements (it's possible to implement > off-line - > > in other transational) > > 4.1) ... > > 4.2) ... > > > > And all steps have been designed into separate microservices. And, of > > course, it have been designed via asynchronous transport. > > On the other hand it seems to be that implementation of coordination of > > 10-20 local transactions is not a good idea > > > > 2016-12-10 23:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > Anton, > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. I am sorry to keep asking questions on > this. > > > Can you change your example to include concrete Ignite calls on Compute > > or > > > Cache APIs (or other APIs)? I am still struggling to understand the > > > boundaries between business and Ignite logic. > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Антон Чураев > > > wrote: > > > > > > > For example: > > > > 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. > > > > 2) Some application (like a business transactional coordinator) > > receives > > > > message via asynchronous transport. This application implements logic > > of > > > > calling different services sequentially or in parallel via > asynchronous > > > > transport. > > > > 3) Each service implement some little changes in a cache. > > > > > > > > Or: > > > > 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. > > > > 2) This transaction is implemented in microservice architecture > (large > > > > number microservices + asynchronous transport). > > > > 3) Each microservice implement some little changes in a cache. > > > > > > > > I think it is possible to implement distributed transactional using > XA > > > > coordinator outside Ignite and local transaction in each service. But > > its > > > > cost may be unacceptable especially in the case of using a large > number > > > of > > > > services. > > > > > > > > I think distributed transaction inside Ignite could be useful also > for > > > > using multiple ComputeTask in one transaction. > > > > > > > > 2016-12-09 21:45 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan >: > > > > > > > > > Sounds like you need a centralized JTA server for this type of > > purpose, > > > > no? > > > > > In that case, Ignite transactions can already merge into ongoing > JTA > > > > > transactions. > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer to see a distributed flow of events to fully > > understand > > > > the > > > > > issue. For example, > > > > > > > > > > Client > > > > > - start transaction > > > > > - send compute > > > > > > > > > > Server > > > > > - receive compute > > > > > - execute ... > > > > > - execute ... > > > > > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Антон Чураев > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In some cases it is necessary to implement a transaction > processing > > > > logic > > > > > > in several different application servers. In this case, working > > with > > > > > Ignite > > > > > > cache will be performed within the various applications. But all > > > these > > > > > > changes must be made within the same distributed transaction. > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion this will require context transfer between the > > threads > > > > > within > > > > > > a single node or multiple Ignite nodes. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-12-08 12:53 GMT+03:00 Alexei Scherbakov < > > > > > alexe
Re: affinityCall in one distributed transaction
Anton, Looking at this sequence, I don't see any way of achieving it other than enrolling all transactions into one JTA transaction. If you seen another way, can you please suggest it here? D. On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Антон Чураев wrote: > Dmitriy, it's ok > > To be abstract simple business transaction for execution payment > (preparation done before) from the card looks like: > 1) Create a payment document (cache API); > 2) Write-off funds from the payer's card; > 2.1) Change in register #1 (cache API); > 2.2) Change in register #2 (cache API); > 2.3) Change in register #... (cache API); > 2.4) Change limits of card (cache API); > 3) Payment to service provider; > 3.1) Change in the balance of business unit having the contract with payer > (cache API); > 3.2) Change in the balance of business unit having the contract with > provider (cache API); > 3.3) Change in the balance of the account (cache API); > 3.4.1) Some change in registers... (cache API); > 3.4.2) ...; > 3.3) ... > 3.4) Invoke provider's API for billing payment of payer; > 4) Formation of financial statements (it's possible to implement off-line - > in other transational) > 4.1) ... > 4.2) ... > > And all steps have been designed into separate microservices. And, of > course, it have been designed via asynchronous transport. > On the other hand it seems to be that implementation of coordination of > 10-20 local transactions is not a good idea > > 2016-12-10 23:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > Anton, > > > > Thanks for the explanation. I am sorry to keep asking questions on this. > > Can you change your example to include concrete Ignite calls on Compute > or > > Cache APIs (or other APIs)? I am still struggling to understand the > > boundaries between business and Ignite logic. > > > > D. > > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Антон Чураев > > wrote: > > > > > For example: > > > 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. > > > 2) Some application (like a business transactional coordinator) > receives > > > message via asynchronous transport. This application implements logic > of > > > calling different services sequentially or in parallel via asynchronous > > > transport. > > > 3) Each service implement some little changes in a cache. > > > > > > Or: > > > 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. > > > 2) This transaction is implemented in microservice architecture (large > > > number microservices + asynchronous transport). > > > 3) Each microservice implement some little changes in a cache. > > > > > > I think it is possible to implement distributed transactional using XA > > > coordinator outside Ignite and local transaction in each service. But > its > > > cost may be unacceptable especially in the case of using a large number > > of > > > services. > > > > > > I think distributed transaction inside Ignite could be useful also for > > > using multiple ComputeTask in one transaction. > > > > > > 2016-12-09 21:45 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > > > Sounds like you need a centralized JTA server for this type of > purpose, > > > no? > > > > In that case, Ignite transactions can already merge into ongoing JTA > > > > transactions. > > > > > > > > I would prefer to see a distributed flow of events to fully > understand > > > the > > > > issue. For example, > > > > > > > > Client > > > > - start transaction > > > > - send compute > > > > > > > > Server > > > > - receive compute > > > > - execute ... > > > > - execute ... > > > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Антон Чураев > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > In some cases it is necessary to implement a transaction processing > > > logic > > > > > in several different application servers. In this case, working > with > > > > Ignite > > > > > cache will be performed within the various applications. But all > > these > > > > > changes must be made within the same distributed transaction. > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion this will require context transfer between the > threads > > > > within > > > > > a single node or multiple Ignite nodes. > > > > > > > > > > 2016-12-08 12:53 GMT+03:00 Alexei Scherbakov < > > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's unclear from your description what are you trying to > achieve. > > > > > > > > > > > > AffinityCall is unicast and wil be send to single node. > > > > > > > > > > > > To parallelise task among the cluster I would recommend to use > > > compute > > > > > task > > > > > > API [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > But the task execution is not transactional. Nevertheless, each > job > > > > > > triggered by task can use it's own local transaction. > > > > > > > > > > > > And please explain, why can't you use a generic Ignite > transaction > > > for > > > > > you > > > > > > task? > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/compute-tasks > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: affinityCall in one distributed transaction
Dmitriy, it's ok To be abstract simple business transaction for execution payment (preparation done before) from the card looks like: 1) Create a payment document (cache API); 2) Write-off funds from the payer's card; 2.1) Change in register #1 (cache API); 2.2) Change in register #2 (cache API); 2.3) Change in register #... (cache API); 2.4) Change limits of card (cache API); 3) Payment to service provider; 3.1) Change in the balance of business unit having the contract with payer (cache API); 3.2) Change in the balance of business unit having the contract with provider (cache API); 3.3) Change in the balance of the account (cache API); 3.4.1) Some change in registers... (cache API); 3.4.2) ...; 3.3) ... 3.4) Invoke provider's API for billing payment of payer; 4) Formation of financial statements (it's possible to implement off-line - in other transational) 4.1) ... 4.2) ... And all steps have been designed into separate microservices. And, of course, it have been designed via asynchronous transport. On the other hand it seems to be that implementation of coordination of 10-20 local transactions is not a good idea 2016-12-10 23:30 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > Anton, > > Thanks for the explanation. I am sorry to keep asking questions on this. > Can you change your example to include concrete Ignite calls on Compute or > Cache APIs (or other APIs)? I am still struggling to understand the > boundaries between business and Ignite logic. > > D. > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Антон Чураев > wrote: > > > For example: > > 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. > > 2) Some application (like a business transactional coordinator) receives > > message via asynchronous transport. This application implements logic of > > calling different services sequentially or in parallel via asynchronous > > transport. > > 3) Each service implement some little changes in a cache. > > > > Or: > > 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. > > 2) This transaction is implemented in microservice architecture (large > > number microservices + asynchronous transport). > > 3) Each microservice implement some little changes in a cache. > > > > I think it is possible to implement distributed transactional using XA > > coordinator outside Ignite and local transaction in each service. But its > > cost may be unacceptable especially in the case of using a large number > of > > services. > > > > I think distributed transaction inside Ignite could be useful also for > > using multiple ComputeTask in one transaction. > > > > 2016-12-09 21:45 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > Sounds like you need a centralized JTA server for this type of purpose, > > no? > > > In that case, Ignite transactions can already merge into ongoing JTA > > > transactions. > > > > > > I would prefer to see a distributed flow of events to fully understand > > the > > > issue. For example, > > > > > > Client > > > - start transaction > > > - send compute > > > > > > Server > > > - receive compute > > > - execute ... > > > - execute ... > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Антон Чураев > > wrote: > > > > > > > In some cases it is necessary to implement a transaction processing > > logic > > > > in several different application servers. In this case, working with > > > Ignite > > > > cache will be performed within the various applications. But all > these > > > > changes must be made within the same distributed transaction. > > > > > > > > In my opinion this will require context transfer between the threads > > > within > > > > a single node or multiple Ignite nodes. > > > > > > > > 2016-12-08 12:53 GMT+03:00 Alexei Scherbakov < > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > > > It's unclear from your description what are you trying to achieve. > > > > > > > > > > AffinityCall is unicast and wil be send to single node. > > > > > > > > > > To parallelise task among the cluster I would recommend to use > > compute > > > > task > > > > > API [1] > > > > > > > > > > But the task execution is not transactional. Nevertheless, each job > > > > > triggered by task can use it's own local transaction. > > > > > > > > > > And please explain, why can't you use a generic Ignite transaction > > for > > > > you > > > > > task? > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/compute-tasks > > > > > > > > > > 2016-12-08 4:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan >: > > > > > > > > > > > Taras, is invokeAll() transactional? The javadoc is silent to > this > > > > fact. > > > > > If > > > > > > it is indeed transactional, then we should update the javadoc. > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Taras Ledkov < > tled...@gridgain.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite compute has no relation to the cache's transaction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that IgniteCache.invokeAll(
Re: affinityCall in one distributed transaction
Anton, Thanks for the explanation. I am sorry to keep asking questions on this. Can you change your example to include concrete Ignite calls on Compute or Cache APIs (or other APIs)? I am still struggling to understand the boundaries between business and Ignite logic. D. On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Антон Чураев wrote: > For example: > 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. > 2) Some application (like a business transactional coordinator) receives > message via asynchronous transport. This application implements logic of > calling different services sequentially or in parallel via asynchronous > transport. > 3) Each service implement some little changes in a cache. > > Or: > 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. > 2) This transaction is implemented in microservice architecture (large > number microservices + asynchronous transport). > 3) Each microservice implement some little changes in a cache. > > I think it is possible to implement distributed transactional using XA > coordinator outside Ignite and local transaction in each service. But its > cost may be unacceptable especially in the case of using a large number of > services. > > I think distributed transaction inside Ignite could be useful also for > using multiple ComputeTask in one transaction. > > 2016-12-09 21:45 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > Sounds like you need a centralized JTA server for this type of purpose, > no? > > In that case, Ignite transactions can already merge into ongoing JTA > > transactions. > > > > I would prefer to see a distributed flow of events to fully understand > the > > issue. For example, > > > > Client > > - start transaction > > - send compute > > > > Server > > - receive compute > > - execute ... > > - execute ... > > > > etc. > > > > D. > > > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Антон Чураев > wrote: > > > > > In some cases it is necessary to implement a transaction processing > logic > > > in several different application servers. In this case, working with > > Ignite > > > cache will be performed within the various applications. But all these > > > changes must be made within the same distributed transaction. > > > > > > In my opinion this will require context transfer between the threads > > within > > > a single node or multiple Ignite nodes. > > > > > > 2016-12-08 12:53 GMT+03:00 Alexei Scherbakov < > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > It's unclear from your description what are you trying to achieve. > > > > > > > > AffinityCall is unicast and wil be send to single node. > > > > > > > > To parallelise task among the cluster I would recommend to use > compute > > > task > > > > API [1] > > > > > > > > But the task execution is not transactional. Nevertheless, each job > > > > triggered by task can use it's own local transaction. > > > > > > > > And please explain, why can't you use a generic Ignite transaction > for > > > you > > > > task? > > > > > > > > [1] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/compute-tasks > > > > > > > > 2016-12-08 4:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > > > > > Taras, is invokeAll() transactional? The javadoc is silent to this > > > fact. > > > > If > > > > > it is indeed transactional, then we should update the javadoc. > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Taras Ledkov > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite compute has no relation to the cache's transaction. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that IgniteCache.invokeAll() is appropriate for described > > > case. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Игорь Г > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before openning JIRA ticket, I want to ask question about > > > > affinityCall > > > > > or > > > > > > > affinityRun transactions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example I have batch task to modify many values in > someCache > > > > > > according > > > > > > > to someRule. I want to parallel this task to whole cluster and > > > > minimize > > > > > > > network traffic. > > > > > > > So the resonable choice is affinityCall feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I want all this changes to be in one transactoin. i.e. with > > at > > > > > least > > > > > > > atomicity property (of ACID). And if for some reason my task > will > > > be > > > > > > > canceled or failed on one node - it should change nothing at > all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, can I achieve this with existing functionality, or how can > I > > > > > approach > > > > > > > to this task? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > С уважением, > > > Чураев Антон > > > > > > > > > -- > С уважением, > Чураев Антон >
Re: affinityCall in one distributed transaction
For example: 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. 2) Some application (like a business transactional coordinator) receives message via asynchronous transport. This application implements logic of calling different services sequentially or in parallel via asynchronous transport. 3) Each service implement some little changes in a cache. Or: 1) Front-end sends a request to perform a complex transaction. 2) This transaction is implemented in microservice architecture (large number microservices + asynchronous transport). 3) Each microservice implement some little changes in a cache. I think it is possible to implement distributed transactional using XA coordinator outside Ignite and local transaction in each service. But its cost may be unacceptable especially in the case of using a large number of services. I think distributed transaction inside Ignite could be useful also for using multiple ComputeTask in one transaction. 2016-12-09 21:45 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > Sounds like you need a centralized JTA server for this type of purpose, no? > In that case, Ignite transactions can already merge into ongoing JTA > transactions. > > I would prefer to see a distributed flow of events to fully understand the > issue. For example, > > Client > - start transaction > - send compute > > Server > - receive compute > - execute ... > - execute ... > > etc. > > D. > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Антон Чураев wrote: > > > In some cases it is necessary to implement a transaction processing logic > > in several different application servers. In this case, working with > Ignite > > cache will be performed within the various applications. But all these > > changes must be made within the same distributed transaction. > > > > In my opinion this will require context transfer between the threads > within > > a single node or multiple Ignite nodes. > > > > 2016-12-08 12:53 GMT+03:00 Alexei Scherbakov < > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > It's unclear from your description what are you trying to achieve. > > > > > > AffinityCall is unicast and wil be send to single node. > > > > > > To parallelise task among the cluster I would recommend to use compute > > task > > > API [1] > > > > > > But the task execution is not transactional. Nevertheless, each job > > > triggered by task can use it's own local transaction. > > > > > > And please explain, why can't you use a generic Ignite transaction for > > you > > > task? > > > > > > [1] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/compute-tasks > > > > > > 2016-12-08 4:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > > > Taras, is invokeAll() transactional? The javadoc is silent to this > > fact. > > > If > > > > it is indeed transactional, then we should update the javadoc. > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Taras Ledkov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ignite compute has no relation to the cache's transaction. > > > > > > > > > > I think that IgniteCache.invokeAll() is appropriate for described > > case. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Игорь Г wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, igniters! > > > > > > > > > > > > Before openning JIRA ticket, I want to ask question about > > > affinityCall > > > > or > > > > > > affinityRun transactions. > > > > > > > > > > > > For example I have batch task to modify many values in someCache > > > > > according > > > > > > to someRule. I want to parallel this task to whole cluster and > > > minimize > > > > > > network traffic. > > > > > > So the resonable choice is affinityCall feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > But I want all this changes to be in one transactoin. i.e. with > at > > > > least > > > > > > atomicity property (of ACID). And if for some reason my task will > > be > > > > > > canceled or failed on one node - it should change nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, can I achieve this with existing functionality, or how can I > > > > approach > > > > > > to this task? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > С уважением, > > Чураев Антон > > > -- С уважением, Чураев Антон
Re: affinityCall in one distributed transaction
Sounds like you need a centralized JTA server for this type of purpose, no? In that case, Ignite transactions can already merge into ongoing JTA transactions. I would prefer to see a distributed flow of events to fully understand the issue. For example, Client - start transaction - send compute Server - receive compute - execute ... - execute ... etc. D. On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Антон Чураев wrote: > In some cases it is necessary to implement a transaction processing logic > in several different application servers. In this case, working with Ignite > cache will be performed within the various applications. But all these > changes must be made within the same distributed transaction. > > In my opinion this will require context transfer between the threads within > a single node or multiple Ignite nodes. > > 2016-12-08 12:53 GMT+03:00 Alexei Scherbakov >: > > > Hi. > > > > It's unclear from your description what are you trying to achieve. > > > > AffinityCall is unicast and wil be send to single node. > > > > To parallelise task among the cluster I would recommend to use compute > task > > API [1] > > > > But the task execution is not transactional. Nevertheless, each job > > triggered by task can use it's own local transaction. > > > > And please explain, why can't you use a generic Ignite transaction for > you > > task? > > > > [1] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/compute-tasks > > > > 2016-12-08 4:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > > > Taras, is invokeAll() transactional? The javadoc is silent to this > fact. > > If > > > it is indeed transactional, then we should update the javadoc. > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Taras Ledkov > > wrote: > > > > > > > Ignite compute has no relation to the cache's transaction. > > > > > > > > I think that IgniteCache.invokeAll() is appropriate for described > case. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Игорь Г wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, igniters! > > > > > > > > > > Before openning JIRA ticket, I want to ask question about > > affinityCall > > > or > > > > > affinityRun transactions. > > > > > > > > > > For example I have batch task to modify many values in someCache > > > > according > > > > > to someRule. I want to parallel this task to whole cluster and > > minimize > > > > > network traffic. > > > > > So the resonable choice is affinityCall feature. > > > > > > > > > > But I want all this changes to be in one transactoin. i.e. with at > > > least > > > > > atomicity property (of ACID). And if for some reason my task will > be > > > > > canceled or failed on one node - it should change nothing at all. > > > > > > > > > > So, can I achieve this with existing functionality, or how can I > > > approach > > > > > to this task? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > Alexei Scherbakov > > > > > > -- > С уважением, > Чураев Антон >
Re: affinityCall in one distributed transaction
In some cases it is necessary to implement a transaction processing logic in several different application servers. In this case, working with Ignite cache will be performed within the various applications. But all these changes must be made within the same distributed transaction. In my opinion this will require context transfer between the threads within a single node or multiple Ignite nodes. 2016-12-08 12:53 GMT+03:00 Alexei Scherbakov : > Hi. > > It's unclear from your description what are you trying to achieve. > > AffinityCall is unicast and wil be send to single node. > > To parallelise task among the cluster I would recommend to use compute task > API [1] > > But the task execution is not transactional. Nevertheless, each job > triggered by task can use it's own local transaction. > > And please explain, why can't you use a generic Ignite transaction for you > task? > > [1] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/compute-tasks > > 2016-12-08 4:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > > > Taras, is invokeAll() transactional? The javadoc is silent to this fact. > If > > it is indeed transactional, then we should update the javadoc. > > > > D. > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Taras Ledkov > wrote: > > > > > Ignite compute has no relation to the cache's transaction. > > > > > > I think that IgniteCache.invokeAll() is appropriate for described case. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Игорь Г wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, igniters! > > > > > > > > Before openning JIRA ticket, I want to ask question about > affinityCall > > or > > > > affinityRun transactions. > > > > > > > > For example I have batch task to modify many values in someCache > > > according > > > > to someRule. I want to parallel this task to whole cluster and > minimize > > > > network traffic. > > > > So the resonable choice is affinityCall feature. > > > > > > > > But I want all this changes to be in one transactoin. i.e. with at > > least > > > > atomicity property (of ACID). And if for some reason my task will be > > > > canceled or failed on one node - it should change nothing at all. > > > > > > > > So, can I achieve this with existing functionality, or how can I > > approach > > > > to this task? > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > Alexei Scherbakov > -- С уважением, Чураев Антон
Re: affinityCall in one distributed transaction
Just clarified that all invoke(..) and invokeAll(..) methods are transactional. Can someone familiar with these methods update the javadoc? Igor, will invoke(..) work for your use case? D. On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Taras, is invokeAll() transactional? The javadoc is silent to this fact. > If it is indeed transactional, then we should update the javadoc. > > D. > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Taras Ledkov wrote: > >> Ignite compute has no relation to the cache's transaction. >> >> I think that IgniteCache.invokeAll() is appropriate for described case. >> >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Игорь Г wrote: >> >> > Hi, igniters! >> > >> > Before openning JIRA ticket, I want to ask question about affinityCall >> or >> > affinityRun transactions. >> > >> > For example I have batch task to modify many values in someCache >> according >> > to someRule. I want to parallel this task to whole cluster and minimize >> > network traffic. >> > So the resonable choice is affinityCall feature. >> > >> > But I want all this changes to be in one transactoin. i.e. with at least >> > atomicity property (of ACID). And if for some reason my task will be >> > canceled or failed on one node - it should change nothing at all. >> > >> > So, can I achieve this with existing functionality, or how can I >> approach >> > to this task? >> > >> > >
Re: affinityCall in one distributed transaction
Hi. It's unclear from your description what are you trying to achieve. AffinityCall is unicast and wil be send to single node. To parallelise task among the cluster I would recommend to use compute task API [1] But the task execution is not transactional. Nevertheless, each job triggered by task can use it's own local transaction. And please explain, why can't you use a generic Ignite transaction for you task? [1] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/compute-tasks 2016-12-08 4:09 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan : > Taras, is invokeAll() transactional? The javadoc is silent to this fact. If > it is indeed transactional, then we should update the javadoc. > > D. > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Taras Ledkov wrote: > > > Ignite compute has no relation to the cache's transaction. > > > > I think that IgniteCache.invokeAll() is appropriate for described case. > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Игорь Г wrote: > > > > > Hi, igniters! > > > > > > Before openning JIRA ticket, I want to ask question about affinityCall > or > > > affinityRun transactions. > > > > > > For example I have batch task to modify many values in someCache > > according > > > to someRule. I want to parallel this task to whole cluster and minimize > > > network traffic. > > > So the resonable choice is affinityCall feature. > > > > > > But I want all this changes to be in one transactoin. i.e. with at > least > > > atomicity property (of ACID). And if for some reason my task will be > > > canceled or failed on one node - it should change nothing at all. > > > > > > So, can I achieve this with existing functionality, or how can I > approach > > > to this task? > > > > > > -- Best regards, Alexei Scherbakov
Re: affinityCall in one distributed transaction
Taras, is invokeAll() transactional? The javadoc is silent to this fact. If it is indeed transactional, then we should update the javadoc. D. On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Taras Ledkov wrote: > Ignite compute has no relation to the cache's transaction. > > I think that IgniteCache.invokeAll() is appropriate for described case. > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Игорь Г wrote: > > > Hi, igniters! > > > > Before openning JIRA ticket, I want to ask question about affinityCall or > > affinityRun transactions. > > > > For example I have batch task to modify many values in someCache > according > > to someRule. I want to parallel this task to whole cluster and minimize > > network traffic. > > So the resonable choice is affinityCall feature. > > > > But I want all this changes to be in one transactoin. i.e. with at least > > atomicity property (of ACID). And if for some reason my task will be > > canceled or failed on one node - it should change nothing at all. > > > > So, can I achieve this with existing functionality, or how can I approach > > to this task? > > >
Re: affinityCall in one distributed transaction
Ignite compute has no relation to the cache's transaction. I think that IgniteCache.invokeAll() is appropriate for described case. On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Игорь Г wrote: > Hi, igniters! > > Before openning JIRA ticket, I want to ask question about affinityCall or > affinityRun transactions. > > For example I have batch task to modify many values in someCache according > to someRule. I want to parallel this task to whole cluster and minimize > network traffic. > So the resonable choice is affinityCall feature. > > But I want all this changes to be in one transactoin. i.e. with at least > atomicity property (of ACID). And if for some reason my task will be > canceled or failed on one node - it should change nothing at all. > > So, can I achieve this with existing functionality, or how can I approach > to this task? >
affinityCall in one distributed transaction
Hi, igniters! Before openning JIRA ticket, I want to ask question about affinityCall or affinityRun transactions. For example I have batch task to modify many values in someCache according to someRule. I want to parallel this task to whole cluster and minimize network traffic. So the resonable choice is affinityCall feature. But I want all this changes to be in one transactoin. i.e. with at least atomicity property (of ACID). And if for some reason my task will be canceled or failed on one node - it should change nothing at all. So, can I achieve this with existing functionality, or how can I approach to this task?
