Dmitriy,
1) EVT_TX_PREPARED were added this morning to check event generation on
remote nodes :)
2) Only GridNearTxLocal has label now, that's the implementation we
currently have. It can be improved if necesary, I think.
So, actually, label always available at
- EVT_TX_STARTED,
- EVT_TX_SUSPENDED,
- EVT_TX_RESUMED
since they can be fired only from originating node (from GridNearTxLocal)
In case any other event will be fired by GridNearTxLocal it will contain
label too.
In case of user call label on remote event it will gain
UnsupportedOperationException.
BTW, rollback also available only at events produced by GridNearTxLocal.
пт, 1 июн. 2018 г. в 16:29, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>:
> Ok, sounds good.
>
> I till have more comments:
>
> 1. I think you have missed EVT_TX_PREPARED event
> 2. I am still very confused with your comment on "label()" method. Why
> is the label not propagated to remote nodes? What happens when users
> call
> this "label()" method for other TX events, not the EVT_TX_STARTED event?
>
> D.
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 6:20 AM, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Dmitriy,
> >
> > In that case there will be no chances to listen only tx creation events
> > without slowing down the system on other tx events creation and
> filtering.
> > All events are processed at same thread where tx changes the state, so,
> we
> > have to have the way to decrease potential slowdown.
> >
> > I made it similar to
> > public static final int[] EVTS_CACHE = {
> > EVT_CACHE_ENTRY_CREATED,
> > EVT_CACHE_ENTRY_DESTROYED,
> > EVT_CACHE_OBJECT_PUT,
> > EVT_CACHE_OBJECT_READ,
> > EVT_CACHE_OBJECT_REMOVED,
> > EVT_CACHE_OBJECT_LOCKED,
> > EVT_CACHE_OBJECT_UNLOCKED,
> > EVT_CACHE_OBJECT_EXPIRED
> > };
> >
> >
> > чт, 31 мая 2018 г. в 20:48, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Anton,
> > >
> > > Why not just have one transaction event: EVT_TX_STATE_CHANGED?
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dmitriy,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your comments!
> > > >
> > > > I've updated design to have
> > > >
> > > > public class TransactionStateChangedEvent extends EventAdapter {
> > > > private Transaction tx;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > also I specified following set of possible events
> > > >
> > > > public static final int[] EVTS_TX = {
> > > > EVT_TX_STARTED,
> > > > EVT_TX_COMMITTED,
> > > > EVT_TX_ROLLED_BACK,
> > > > EVT_TX_SUSPENDED,
> > > > EVT_TX_RESUMED
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > It contains most of reasonable tx states changes.
> > > > Additional events can be added later if necessary.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tx label() available only at EVT_TX_STARTED because it is not
> > propagated
> > > to
> > > > remote nodes, but
> > > >
> > > > - xid()
> > > > - nodeId()
> > > > - threadId()
> > > > - startTime()
> > > > - isolation()
> > > > - concurrency()
> > > > - implicit()
> > > > - isInvalidate()
> > > > - state()
> > > > - timeout()
> > > >
> > > > now available at any tx state change event.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As usual, full code listing available at
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4036/files
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > вт, 29 мая 2018 г. в 20:41, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org
> >:
> > > >
> > > > > Anton,
> > > > >
> > > > > We cannot have TransactionStartedEvent without having events for
> all
> > > > other
> > > > > transaction states, like TransactionPreparedEvent,
> > > > > TransactionCommittedEvent, etc. Considering this, I sill do not
> like
> > > the
> > > > > design, as we would have to create many extra event classes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead, I would suggest that you create
> TransactionStateChangeEvent,
> > > > which
> > > > > would have previous and new transaction state and would cover all
> > state
> > > > > changes, not just the start of the transaction. This will make the
> > > design
> > > > > consistent and thorough.
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:39 AM, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > I fixed design according to your and Yakov's comments, thanks
> again
> > > for
> > > > > > clear explanation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> 1. You use internal API in public event, i.e. you cannot have
> > user
> > > > > > >> accessing to IgniteInternalTx instance through TxEvent.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Event definition changed to
> > > > > > public class TransactionStartedEvent extends EventAdapter {
> > > > > > private IgniteTransactions tx;
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not it's 100% public.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> 2. Throwing runtime errors from listener is not documented
> and I
> > > > doubt
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > >> it can be fully supported in the pattern you use in
> TxLabelTest.
> > > > After
> > > > > > >> looking at the mentioned test user may think that throwing
> > runtime
> > > > > error
> > > > > > >> when notified on new node join may prohibit new node joining
> > which
> > > > is
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> true. Do you have any example in Ignite when throwing
> exception
> > > from
> > > > > > >> listener is valid and documented.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Test's logic changed to
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > // Label
> > > > > > IgniteTransactions tx = evt.tx();
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if (tx.label() == null)
> > > > > > tx.tx().rollback();
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > // Timeout
> > > > > > Transaction tx = evt.tx().tx();
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if (tx.timeout() < 200)
> > > > > > tx.rollback();
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, tx will be rollbacked on creation and any commit attempt will
> > > cause
> > > > > > TransactionRollbackException
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Full code listing available at
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4036/files
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dmitriy, Yakov,
> > > > > > Could you please check and confirm changes?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anton, why do you need to *alter* event sub-system to
> introduce a
> > > new
> > > > > > > event? Yakov's issue was that you propagated private interface
> to
> > > > > public
> > > > > > > API, which is bad of course. Come up with a clean design and it
> > > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > > accepted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My problem with TransactionValidator is that it only solves a
> > small
> > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > for transactions. If we do that, then we will have to add cache
> > > > > > validators,
> > > > > > > compute validators, etc, etc, etc. That is why we either should
> > use
> > > > the
> > > > > > > existing event subsystem or come up with a holistic design that
> > > will
> > > > > work
> > > > > > > across the whole project.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:38 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> a...@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dmitriy,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yakov is against the solution based on event sub-system
> > > > > > > > >> I think that we should think about some other solution
> > instead
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > altering
> > > > > > > > >> event sub-system.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I checked is there any chances to fix all the issues
> > found
> > > by
> > > > > > Yakov
> > > > > > > > and see that solution becomes overcomplicated in that case.
> > > > > > > > That's why I'm proposing this lightweight solution.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As for me it's a good idea to have such validator since
> that's
> > a
> > > > > common
> > > > > > > > problem at huge deployments when more than one team have
> access
> > > to
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > cluster and there is no other way to setup tx cretion rules.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yakov,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you please share your thoughts on that?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > чт, 24 мая 2018 г. в 8:58, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 4:08 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > a...@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Yakov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are there any objections to updated design taking into
> > > account
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > comments
> > > > > > > > > > I provided?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anton, I do not like an additional validator. I think you
> can
> > > > > > > accomplish
> > > > > > > > > the same with a transaction event. You just need to design
> it
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > cleanly,
> > > > > > > > > incorporating the feedback from Yakov.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
