Val, Alexei - no objections from my side, thanks for the explanation.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 1:18 PM Alexei Scherbakov <
alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pavel, I agree with Val to avoid overloading due to a loss of API
> transparency.
>
> Val, moving the tx argument at the first position seems good to me.
>
> пн, 29 нояб. 2021 г. в 22:03, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Alexei,
> >
> > One more comment: I actually think that the transaction should be the
> first
> > argument, not the last. This way it's easier to keep the API consistent.
> > For example, if a method uses varargs as one of the parameters, you won't
> > be able to put the tx parameter at the end. There might be other cases as
> > well. What do you think?
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 10:59 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I like Alexei's suggestion. This seems to be the most transparent and
> > > explicit approach. Basically, this ensures that the user is always
> aware
> > of
> > > whether an operation is enlisted in a transaction or not. Any other
> > option
> > > is either error-prone, or introduces unnecessary counter-intuitive
> > > limitations.
> > >
> > > I don't think we should keep overloads without the tx parameter,
> because
> > > that will pretty much eliminate the value of this change. One thing we
> > can
> > > do to address this is to have separate "non-tx" views, which can only
> be
> > > used to execute implicit transactions. But I would look at this after
> we
> > > more or less stabilize the primary API.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 5:03 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Alexei,
> > >>
> > >> Are we going to offer an overload without tx parameter?
> > >>
> > >> getAsync(K key);
> > >> getAsync(K key, Transaction tx);
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 3:43 PM Alexei Scherbakov <
> > >> alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Pavel,
> > >> >
> > >> > The problem with a current approach to me is the possibility of
> > >> forgetting
> > >> > to enlist a table into a transaction, because it is not enforced.
> > >> > Having the explicit argument for this purpose seems less error-prone
> > to
> > >> me.
> > >> >
> > >> > пн, 29 нояб. 2021 г. в 15:13, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org
> >:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Taras, yes, yours is the actual syntax in main branch right now,
> > >> > > I've skipped the tx argument in my code accidentally.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 3:03 PM Taras Ledkov <
> tled...@gridgain.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Hi colleagues,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > 2Pavel:
> > >> > > > > RecordView<Tuple> txView = view.withTransaction();
> > >> > > > Can we use the syntax (see below) to attach the table /
> operation
> > to
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > started transaction?
> > >> > > > RecordView<Tuple2> txPersonView =
> > >> > > > person.recordView().withTransaction(txView.transaction());
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > >> ptupit...@apache.org>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Alexei,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I agree that runInTransaction is confusing and error-prone.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > But we already have view.withTransaction(), which seems to be
> > the
> > >> > most
> > >> > > > > boilerplate-free approach.
> > >> > > > > The example above will look like this:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > public void testMixedPutGet() throws TransactionException {
> > >> > > > > RecordView<Tuple> view = accounts.recordView();
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > view.upsert(makeValue(1, BALANCE_1));
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > RecordView<Tuple> txView = view.withTransaction();
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > txView.getAsync(makeKey(1)).thenCompose(r ->
> > >> > > > > txView.upsertAsync(makeValue(1, r.doubleValue("balance") +
> > DELTA),
> > >> > > > > tx)).thenCompose(txView.transaction().commitAsync()).join();
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > assertEquals(BALANCE_1 + DELTA,
> > >> > > > > view.get(makeKey(1)).doubleValue("balance"));
> > >> > > > > }
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Is there any problem with this?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 10:45 AM Alexei Scherbakov <
> > >> > > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Folks,
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Recently I've pushed transactions support phase 1 for Ignite
> > 3,
> > >> see
> > >> > > > [1].
> > >> > > > > > Feel free to give feedback.
> > >> > > > > > Current implementation attempts to automatically enlist a
> > table
> > >> > into
> > >> > > > > > transaction if it's started using [2] or [3] by using thread
> > >> local
> > >> > > > > context,
> > >> > > > > > similar to Ignite 2 approach, to reduce the amount of
> > >> boilerplate
> > >> > > code.
> > >> > > > > > But it turns out such an approach still has unacceptable
> > >> drawbacks
> > >> > > > from a
> > >> > > > > > user experience point of view.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Consider the example [4]:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > public void testMixedPutGet() throws TransactionException {
> > >> > > > > > accounts.recordView().upsert(makeValue(1,
> BALANCE_1));
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > igniteTransactions.runInTransaction(tx -> {
> > >> > > > > > var txAcc =
> > >> accounts.recordView().withTransaction(tx);
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > txAcc.getAsync(makeKey(1)).thenCompose(r ->
> > >> > > > > > txAcc.upsertAsync(makeValue(1, r.doubleValue("balance") +
> > >> > > > > DELTA))).join();
> > >> > > > > > });
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > assertEquals(BALANCE_1 + DELTA,
> > >> > > > > >
> accounts.recordView().get(makeKey(1)).doubleValue("balance"));
> > >> > > > > > }
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Here we *have to* to manually enlist a table if it's used in
> > >> async
> > >> > > > chain
> > >> > > > > > call, because the caller thread will be different and the
> > >> chained
> > >> > > > > operation
> > >> > > > > > will be executed in separate tx.
> > >> > > > > > This works similarly in Ignite 2 and is very confusing.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > To avoid this, I propose to add an explicit Transaction
> > >> argument to
> > >> > > > each
> > >> > > > > > table API method. Null value means to start the implicit
> > >> > transaction
> > >> > > > > > (autocommit mode). For example:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > /**
> > >> > > > > > * Asynchronously inserts a record into the table if it
> > >> doesn't
> > >> > > > exist
> > >> > > > > > or replaces the existed one.
> > >> > > > > > *
> > >> > > > > > * @param rec A record to insert into the table. The
> > record
> > >> > > cannot
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > {@code null}.
> > >> > > > > > * @param tx The transaction or {@code null} to auto
> > commit.
> > >> > > > > > * @return Future representing pending completion of the
> > >> > > operation.
> > >> > > > > > */
> > >> > > > > > @NotNull CompletableFuture<Void> upsertAsync(@NotNull R
> > rec,
> > >> > > > > @Nullable
> > >> > > > > > Transaction tx);
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > The example [4] turns to
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > public void testMixedPutGet() throws TransactionException {
> > >> > > > > > RecordView<Tuple> view = accounts.recordView();
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > view.upsert(makeValue(1, BALANCE_1));
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > igniteTransactions.runInTransaction(tx -> {
> > >> > > > > > view.getAsync(makeKey(1), tx).thenCompose(r ->
> > >> > > > > > view.upsertAsync(makeValue(1, r.doubleValue("balance") +
> > DELTA),
> > >> > > > > > tx)).join();
> > >> > > > > > });
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > assertEquals(BALANCE_1 + DELTA,
> > >> > > > > > view.get(makeKey(1)).doubleValue("balance"));
> > >> > > > > > }
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Share your thoughts.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15085
> > >> > > > > > [2]
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> org.apache.ignite.tx.IgniteTransactions#runInTransaction(java.util.function.Consumer<org.apache.ignite.tx.Transaction>)
> > >> > > > > > [3]
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> org.apache.ignite.tx.IgniteTransactions#runInTransaction(java.util.function.Function<org.apache.ignite.tx.Transaction,T>)
> > >> > > > > > [4]
> > >> org.apache.ignite.internal.table.TxAbstractTest#testMixedPutGet
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > ср, 14 июл. 2021 г. в 14:12, Alexei Scherbakov <
> > >> > > > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Andrey,
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 1) "As a user, I'd expect runInTransaction(closure) will
> > >> create
> > >> > Tx
> > >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > me,
> > >> > > > > > > commit Tx after a successful closure call, and rollback Tx
> > in
> > >> > case
> > >> > > of
> > >> > > > > > > error."
> > >> > > > > > > - I'm ok with this behavior, and will alter javadoc.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 2) "Transaction tx = beginTx()" - there is no such method
> > >> > "beginTx"
> > >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > proposed API, and I'm not intending to add it.
> > >> > > > > > > For the synchronous case I suggest to use
> > "runInTransaction",
> > >> > which
> > >> > > > > > > eliminates the need in AutoClosable.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > ср, 14 июл. 2021 г. в 13:21, Ivan Daschinsky <
> > >> > ivanda...@gmail.com
> > >> > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > yes, it is stated in the javadoc in the PR.
> > >> > > > > > >> Ah, I see.
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> ср, 14 июл. 2021 г. в 12:16, Alexei Scherbakov <
> > >> > > > > > >> alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >> >:
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> > Ivan,
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > And what if I have already committed transaction? Is it
> > >> safe
> > >> > > > > rollback
> > >> > > > > > >> > already committed transaction? Rollback will silently
> > >> return
> > >> > and
> > >> > > > do
> > >> > > > > > >> > nothing? - yes, it is stated in the javadoc in the PR.
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > Andrey,
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > Then using "runInTransaction", lack of commit will
> cause
> > a
> > >> > > > > transaction
> > >> > > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> > rollback automatically.
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > There is no need for a "close" method, it just adds
> > >> confusion.
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > ср, 14 июл. 2021 г. в 11:37, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> > > > > > >> andrey.mashen...@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >> > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > Agree with Ivan.
> > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > Method runInTransaction() should try to finish the
> > >> > transaction
> > >> > > > if
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> > user
> > >> > > > > > >> > > forgot to commit one.
> > >> > > > > > >> > > I guess it might be a common mistake among new users.
> > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > Also, I suggest to extent all table projections for
> > >> better
> > >> > UX.
> > >> > > > > > >> > > Let's allow
> > >> > > > > > >> > > table.kvView().withTx(tx)
> > >> > > > > > >> > > to user may cache kvVew instance and do
> > >> > > > > > >> > > kvView.withTx(tx)
> > >> > > > > > >> > > rather than
> > >> > > > > > >> > > table.withTx(tx).kvVew()
> > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 10:13 AM Ivan Daschinsky <
> > >> > > > > > ivanda...@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > Alexey, and is there any analogue to close() of
> > >> > transaction?
> > >> > > > > When
> > >> > > > > > >> you
> > >> > > > > > >> > > start
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > transaction, you should somehow to close it, if you
> > >> don't
> > >> > > > catch
> > >> > > > > > >> > exception
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > or forget to commit.
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > I suggest to add method closeAsync() to
> Transaction,
> > so
> > >> > user
> > >> > > > can
> > >> > > > > > >> call
> > >> > > > > > >> > it
> > >> > > > > > >> > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > handle or whenComplete, i.e.
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > So code will looks like
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > CacheApi cache = CacheApi.getCache("testCache");
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > Transactions
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > .beginTransaction()
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > .thenCompose(tx -> {
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > CacheApi txCache = cache.withTx(tx);
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > CompletableFuture<Void> result =
> > >> > > > txCache.getAsync("key")
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > .thenCompose(val -> {
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > if (val == "test") {
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > return txCache.putAsync("key",
> > >> > "test1");
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > }
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > else
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > return
> > >> > > > > > CompletableFuture.completedFuture(null);
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > })
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > .thenCompose(v -> tx.commitAsync())
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > .handle((v, ex) -> null);
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > return result.thenCompose(v ->
> > >> tx.closeAsync());
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > });
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > I also suggests to add method something like this
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > static CompletableFuture<Void>
> > >> > > inTxAsync(Function<Transaction,
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > CompletableFuture<Void>> action) {
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > return Transactions
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > .beginTransaction()
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > .thenCompose(tx -> {
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > CompletableFuture<Object> result =
> > >> > > > action.apply(tx)
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > .handle((v, ex) -> null);
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > return result.thenCompose(v ->
> > >> > tx.closeAsync());
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > });
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > }
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > Async api is not very readable, but this method can
> > >> help
> > >> > > user
> > >> > > > > > write
> > >> > > > > > >> > code,
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > this is rewritten first example:
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > Transactions.inTxAsync(tx -> {
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > CacheApi txCache = cache.withTx(tx);
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > return txCache.getAsync("key")
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > .thenCompose(val -> {
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > if (val == "test") {
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > return txCache.putAsync("key",
> > >> "test1");
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > }
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > else
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > return
> > >> > > > CompletableFuture.completedFuture(null);
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > })
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > .thenCompose(v -> tx.commitAsync());
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > });
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > ср, 14 июл. 2021 г. в 10:03, Alexei Scherbakov <
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Andrey,
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I suggest you look at the PR [1], if you haven't.
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > A transaction [2]
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Transactions facade [3]
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Examples [4]
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > [1]
> > >> https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/214/files
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > [2]
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/d2122ce8c15de020e121f53509bd5a097aac9cf2/modules/api/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/tx/Transaction.java
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > [3]
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/d2122ce8c15de020e121f53509bd5a097aac9cf2/modules/api/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/tx/IgniteTransactions.java
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > [4]
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/blob/d2122ce8c15de020e121f53509bd5a097aac9cf2/modules/table/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/table/TxTest.java
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > вт, 13 июл. 2021 г. в 19:41, Andrey Gura <
> > >> > > ag...@apache.org
> > >> > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Alexey,
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > could you please describe Transaction
> interface?
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Also it would be great to have a couple
> examples
> > of
> > >> > > using
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> > > proposed
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > API.
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 4:43 PM Alexei
> Scherbakov
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > <alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Folks,
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I've prepared a PR implementing my vision of
> > >> public
> > >> > > > > > >> transactions
> > >> > > > > > >> > > API.
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > API is very simple and similar to Ignite 2,
> but
> > >> has
> > >> > > some
> > >> > > > > > >> > > differences.
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > More details can be found here [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Share your thoughts.
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > [1]
> > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-15086
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> > > > Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
> > >> > > > > > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> > Alexei Scherbakov
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> --
> > >> > > > > > >> Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > Alexei Scherbakov
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> >
> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> > Alexei Scherbakov
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Alexei Scherbakov
>
