Hi Vladislav,
I see you're developing [1] for a while, did you have any chance to fix
it? If no, is there any estimate?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1977
Thanks!
-Dmitry.
20.03.2017 10:28, Alexey Goncharuk пишет:
I think re-creation should be handled by a user who will make sure that
nobody else is currently executing the guarded logic before the
re-creation. This is exactly the same semantics as with
BrokenBarrierException for j.u.c.CyclicBarrier.
2017-03-17 2:39 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladis...@gmail.com>:
Hi everyone,
I agree with Val, he's got a point; recreating the lock doesn't seem
possible
(at least not the with the transactional cache lock/semaphore we have).
Is this re-create behavior really needed?
Best regards,
Vladisav
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
Guys,
How does recreation of the lock helps? My understanding is that scenario
is
the following:
1. Client A creates and acquires a lock, and then starts to execute
guarded
logic.
2. Client B tries to acquire the same lock and parks to wait.
3. Before client A unlocks, all affinity nodes for the lock fail, lock
disappears from the cache.
4. Client B fails with exception, recreates the lock, acquires it, and
starts to execute guarded logic concurrently with client A.
In my view this is wrong anyway, regardless of whether this happens
silently or with an exception handled in user's code. Because this code
doesn't have any way to know if client A still holds the lock or not.
Am I missing something?
-Val
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
dsetrak...@apache.org
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:46 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
Which user operation would result in exception? To my knowledge,
user
may
already be holding the lock and not invoking any Ignite APIs, no?
Yes, this is exactly my point.
Imagine that a node already holds a lock and another node is waiting
for
the lock. If all partition nodes leave the grid and the lock is
re-created,
this second node will immediately acquire the lock and we will have
two
lock owners. I think in this case this second node (blocked on
lock())
should get an exception saying that the lock was lost (which is, by
the
way, the current behavior), and the first node should get an
exception
on
unlock.
Makes sense.
