IgniteTransactionState implememntation contains IgniteTxEntry's which is
supposed to be transferable
пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 19:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>:
> It sounds a little scary to me that we are passing transaction objects
> around. Such object may contain all sorts of Ignite context. If some data
> needs to be passed across, we should create a special transfer object in
> this case.
>
> D.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:10 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > well, there a couple of issues preventing transaction proceeding.
> > At first, After transaction serialization and deserialization on the
> remote
> > server, there is no txState. So im going to put it in
> > writeExternal()\readExternal()
> >
> > The last one is Deserialized transaction lacks of shared cache context
> > field at TransactionProxyImpl. Perhaps, it must be injected by
> > GridResourceProcessor ?
> >
> > пн, 13 мар. 2017 г. в 17:27, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > > while starting and continuing transaction in different jvms in run into
> > > serialization exception in writeExternalMeta :
> > >
> > > @Override public void writeExternal(ObjectOutput out) throws
> IOException
> > {
> > > writeExternalMeta(out);
> > >
> > > some meta is cannot be serialized.
> > > пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в 17:25, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > Aleksey,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think I am starting to get what you want, but I have a few concerns:
> > > - What is the API for the proposed change? In your test, you pass an
> > > instance of transaction created on ignite(0) to the ignite instance
> > > ignite(1). This is obviously not possible in a truly distributed
> > > (multi-jvm) environment.
> > > - How will you synchronize cache update actions and transaction commit?
> > > Say, you have one node that decided to commit, but another node is
> still
> > > writing within this transaction. How do you make sure that two nodes
> will
> > > not call commit() and rollback() simultaneously?
> > > - How do you make sure that either commit() or rollback() is called if
> > an
> > > originator failed?
> > >
> > > 2017-03-10 15:38 GMT+03:00 Дмитрий Рябов <somefire...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Alexey Goncharuk, heh, my initial understanding was that transferring
> > of
> > > tx
> > > > ownership from one node to another will be happened automatically
> when
> > > > originating node is gone down.
> > > >
> > > > 2017-03-10 15:36 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Im aiming to span transaction on multiple threads, nodes,
> jvms(soon).
> > > So
> > > > > every node is able to rollback, or commit common transaction.It
> > turned
> > > > up i
> > > > > need to transfer tx between nodes in order to commit transaction in
> > > > > different node(in the same jvm).
> > > > >
> > > > > пт, 10 мар. 2017 г. в 15:20, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Aleksey,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you mean that you want a concept of transferring of tx
> ownership
> > > > from
> > > > > > one node to another? My initial understanding was that you want
> to
> > be
> > > > > able
> > > > > > to update keys in a transaction from multiple threads in
> parallel.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --AG
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-03-10 15:01 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well. Consider transaction started in one node, and continued
> in
> > > > > another
> > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > The following test describes my idea:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ignite ignite1 = ignite(0);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IgniteTransactions transactions = ignite1.transactions();
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IgniteCache<String, Integer> cache = ignite1.getOrCreateCache("
> > > > > > > testCache");
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Transaction tx = transactions.txStart(concurrency, isolation);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > cache.put("key1", 1);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > cache.put("key2", 2);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > tx.stop();
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IgniteInternalFuture<Boolean> fut = GridTestUtils.runAsync(()
> ->
> > {
> > > > > > > IgniteTransactions ts = ignite(1).transactions();
> > > > > > > Assert.assertNull(ts.tx());
> > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.STOPPED, tx.state());
> > > > > > > ts.txStart(tx);
> > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.ACTIVE, tx.state());
> > > > > > > cache.put("key3", 3);
> > > > > > > Assert.assertTrue(cache.remove("key2"));
> > > > > > > tx.commit();
> > > > > > > return true;
> > > > > > > });
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > fut.get();
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals(TransactionState.COMMITTED, tx.state());
> > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals((long)1, (long)cache.get("key1"));
> > > > > > > Assert.assertEquals((long)3, (long)cache.get("key3"));
> > > > > > > Assert.assertFalse(cache.containsKey("key2"));
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In method *ts.txStart(...)* we just rebind *tx* to current
> > thread:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > public void txStart(Transaction tx) {
> > > > > > > TransactionProxyImpl transactionProxy =
> > > (TransactionProxyImpl)tx;
> > > > > > > cctx.tm().reopenTx(transactionProxy.tx());
> > > > > > > transactionProxy.bindToCurrentThread();
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In method *reopenTx* we alter *threadMap* so that it binds
> > > > transaction
> > > > > > > to current thread.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How do u think about it ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 7 мар. 2017 г. в 22:38, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Alexey,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please share the rational behind this and the thoughts,
> design
> > > > ideas
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > have in mind.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 2017, at 3:19 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all! Im designing distributed transaction which can be
> > > started
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > node, and continued at other one. Has anybody thoughts on
> it
> > ?
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > >
> > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > *Best Regards,*
> > >
> > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > >
> > --
> >
> > *Best Regards,*
> >
> > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> >
>
--
*Best Regards,*
*Kuznetsov Aleksey*
