Thank you very much for help. I will answer later.
ср, 15 мар. 2017 г. в 17:39, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>:
> All the services do not update key in place, but only generate new keys
> augmented by otx and store the updated value in the same cache + remember
> the keys and versions participating in the transaction in some separate
> atomic cache.
>
> Follow this sequence of changes applied to cache contents by each Service:
>
> Initial cache contents:
> [k1 => v1]
> [k2 => v2]
> [k3 => v3]
>
> Cache contents after Service A:
> [k1 => v1]
> [k2 => v2]
> [k3 => v3]
> [k1x => v1a]
> [k2x => v2a]
>
> + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2)] in some separate atomic cache
>
> Cache contents after Service B:
> [k1 => v1]
> [k2 => v2]
> [k3 => v3]
> [k1x => v1a]
> [k2x => v2ab]
> [k3x => v3b]
>
> + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in some separate
> atomic cache
>
> Finally the Committer Service takes this map of updated keys and their
> versions from some separate atomic cache, starts Ignite transaction and
> replaces all the values for k* keys to values taken from k*x keys. The
> successful result must be the following:
>
> [k1 => v1a]
> [k2 => v2ab]
> [k3 => v3b]
> [k1x => v1a]
> [k2x => v2ab]
> [k3x => v3b]
>
> + [x => (k1 -> ver1, k2 -> ver2, k3 -> ver3)] in some separate
> atomic cache
>
> But Committer Service also has to check that no one updated the original
> values before us, because otherwise we can not give any serializability
> guarantee for these distributed transactions. Here we may need to check not
> only versions of the updated keys, but also versions of any other keys end
> result depends on.
>
> After that Committer Service has to do a cleanup (may be outside of the
> committing tx) to come to the following final state:
>
> [k1 => v1a]
> [k2 => v2ab]
> [k3 => v3b]
>
> Makes sense?
>
> Sergi
>
>
> 2017-03-15 16:54 GMT+03:00 ALEKSEY KUZNETSOV <alkuznetsov...@gmail.com>:
>
> > - 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*
> >
>
--
*Best Regards,*
*Kuznetsov Aleksey*
