- what do u mean by saying "
*in a single transaction checks value versions for all the old values
and replaces them with calculated new ones *"? Every time you change
value(in some service), you store it to *some special atomic cache* , so
when all services ceased working, Service commiter got a values with the
last versions.
- After "*does cleanup of temporary keys and values*" Service commiter
persists them into permanent store, isn't it ?
- I cant grasp your though, you say "*in case of version mismatch or TX
timeout just rollbacks*". But what versions would it match?
ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 15:34, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
> Ok, here is what you actually need to implement at the application level.
>
> Lets say we have to call 2 services in the following order:
> - Service A: wants to update keys [k1 => v1, k2 => v2] to [k1 => v1a,
> k2 => v2a]
> - Service B: wants to update keys [k2 => v2a, k3 => v3] to [k2 => v2ab,
> k3 => v3b]
>
> The change
> from [ k1 => v1, k2 => v2, k3 => v3 ]
> to [ k1 => v1a, k2 => v2ab, k3 => v3b ]
> must happen in a single transaction.
>
>
> Optimistic protocol to solve this:
>
> Each cache key must have a field `otx`, which is a unique orchestrator TX
> identifier - it must be a parameter passed to all the services. If `otx` is
> set to some value it means that it is an intermediate key and is visible
> only inside of some transaction, for the finalized key `otx` must be null -
> it means the key is committed and visible for everyone.
>
> Each cache value must have a field `ver` which is a version of that value.
>
> For both fields (`otx` and `ver`) the safest way is to use UUID.
>
> Workflow is the following:
>
> Orchestrator starts the distributed transaction with `otx` = x and passes
> this parameter to all the services.
>
> Service A:
> - does some computations
> - stores [k1x => v1a, k2x => v2a] with TTL = Za
> where
> Za - left time from max Orchestrator TX duration after Service A
> end
> k1x, k2x - new temporary keys with field `otx` = x
> v2a has updated version `ver`
> - returns a set of updated keys and all the old versions to the
> orchestrator
> or just stores it in some special atomic cache like
> [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] TTL = Za
>
> Service B:
> - retrieves the updated value k2x => v2a because it knows `otx` = x
> - does computations
> - stores [k2x => v2ab, k3x => v3b] TTL = Zb
> - updates the set of updated keys like [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3
> -> ver3)] TTL = Zb
>
> Service Committer (may be embedded into Orchestrator):
> - takes all the updated keys and versions for `otx` = x
> [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)]
> - in a single transaction checks value versions for all the old values
> and replaces them with calculated new ones
> - does cleanup of temporary keys and values
> - in case of version mismatch or TX timeout just rollbacks and signals
> to Orchestrator to restart the job with new `otx`
>
> PROFIT!!
>
> This approach even allows you to run independent parts of the graph in
> parallel (with TX transfer you will always run only one at a time). Also it
> does not require inventing any special fault tolerance technics because
> Ignite caches are already fault tolerant and all the intermediate results
> are virtually invisible and stored with TTL, thus in case of any crash you
> will not have inconsistent state or garbage.
>
> Sergi
>
>
> 2017-03-15 11:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Okay, we are open for proposals on business task. I mean, we can make use
> > of some other thing, not distributed transaction. Not transaction yet.
> >
> > ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 11:24, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > IMO the use case makes sense. However, as Sergi already mentioned, the
> > > problem is far more complex, than simply passing TX state over a wire.
> > Most
> > > probably a kind of coordinator will be required still to manage all
> kinds
> > > of failures. This task should be started with clean design proposal
> > > explaining how we handle all these concurrent events. And only then,
> when
> > > we understand all implications, we should move to development stage.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:38 AM, ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Right
> > > >
> > > > ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 10:35, Sergi Vladykin <
> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Good! Basically your orchestrator just takes some predefined graph
> of
> > > > > distributed services to be invoked, calls them by some kind of RPC
> > and
> > > > > passes the needed parameters between them, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sergi
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-03-14 22:46 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > orchestrator is a custom thing. He is responsible for managing
> > > business
> > > > > > scenarios flows. Many nodes are involved in scenarios. They
> > exchange
> > > > data
> > > > > > and folow one another. If you acquinted with BPMN framework, so
> > > > > > orchestrator is like bpmn engine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 14 Мар 2017 г., 18:56 Sergi Vladykin <
> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > What is Orchestrator for you? Is it a thing from Microsoft or
> > your
> > > > > custom
> > > > > > > in-house software?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-03-14 18:00 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fine. Let's say we've got multiple servers which fulfills
> > custom
> > > > > logic.
> > > > > > > > This servers compound oriented graph (BPMN process) which
> > > > controlled
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > > Orchestrator.
> > > > > > > > For instance, *server1 *creates *variable A *with value 1,
> > > > persists
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > IGNITE cache and creates *variable B *and sends it to*
> server2.
> > > > *The
> > > > > > > > latests receives *variable B*, do some logic with it and
> stores
> > > to
> > > > > > > IGNITE.
> > > > > > > > All the work made by both servers must be fulfilled in *one*
> > > > > > transaction.
> > > > > > > > Because we need all information done, or nothing(rollbacked).
> > The
> > > > > > > scenario
> > > > > > > > is managed by orchestrator.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 17:31, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ok, it is not a business case, it is your wrong solution
> for
> > > it.
> > > > > > > > > Lets try again, what is the business case?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2017-03-14 16:42 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The case is the following, One starts transaction in one
> > > node,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > this transaction in another jvm node(or rollback it
> > > remotely).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 16:30, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Because even if you make it work for some simplistic
> > > > scenario,
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > ready
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > write many fault tolerance tests and make sure that you
> > TXs
> > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > gracefully
> > > > > > > > > > > in all modes in case of crashes. Also make sure that we
> > do
> > > > not
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > performance drops after all your changes in existing
> > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe these conditions will be met and your
> > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > accepted.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Better solution to what problem? Sending TX to another
> > > node?
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > > > statement itself is already wrong. What business case
> you
> > > are
> > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > solve? I'm sure everything you need can be done in a
> much
> > > > more
> > > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > efficient way at the application level.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-14 16:03 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why wrong ? You know the better solution?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 14 мар. 2017 г. в 15:46, Sergi Vladykin <
> > > > > > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Just serializing TX object and deserializing it on
> > > > another
> > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > meaningless, because other nodes participating in
> the
> > > TX
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the new coordinator. This will require protocol
> > > changes,
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > definitely
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have fault tolerance and performance issues. IMO
> the
> > > > whole
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and it makes no sense to waste time on it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sergi
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-03-14 10:57 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <
> > > > > > > > > > alkuznetsov...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > *Best Regards,*
> > > >
> > > > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> >
> > *Best Regards,*
> >
> > *Kuznetsov Aleksey*
> >
>
--
*Best Regards,*
*Kuznetsov Aleksey*
