[infinispan-dev] Implicit locking

[Manik Surtani]

On 25 May 2009, at 12:37, Vladimir Blagojevic wrote:

> Had a bit more discussion on this topic with Mircea and I wanted to  
> get your possible input. I can foresee two ways we can implement  
> this feature. First, in CacheDelegate for each write command we  
> simply invoke lock in case operation is done within transactional  
> context and eager locking is on.  Second, Mircea suggested to  
> augment TxInterceptor (probably within shouldEnlist branch of  
> enlistWriteAndInvokeNext method) where we create LockControlCommand  
> and send it down the stack prior to sending intercepted write  
> command down the stack.

I think putting this in the TxInterceptor makes sense since it only  
affects writes within a tx.  Perhaps subclassing the TxInterceptor to  
do this?

> Another requirement is not to repeatedly send LCC command around the  
> cluster for write operation that already caused locks to be obtained  
> eagerly around the cluster. I think this requirement can be handled  
> within LockInterceptor#visitLockControlCommand thus hiding the  
> complexity away from possible invocation of LockControlCommand from  
> either CacheDelegate or TxInterceptor.

Hmm, good point.  Maybe then it does make more sense to put it in the  
LockingInterceptor.

> WDYT?
>
> Cheers,
> Vladimir
>
> On 5/25/09 9:02 AM, Vladimir Blagojevic wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> I want to start working on [1]. Which operations do we want to  
>> include into transparent implicit eager locking? All operations  
>> that are WriteCommand(s)?
>>
>> I want to add boolean attribute useEagerLocking in transaction  
>> configuration element. If you object to this name, speak up!

+1 to this.  Please update the config XSD, parser tests and the sample  
all.xml file accordingly.

Cheers,
--
Manik Surtani
manik at jboss.org
Lead, Infinispan
Lead, JBoss Cache
http://www.infinispan.org
http://www.jbosscache.org