Regarding the comment on transactional versus non-transactional threads mentioned on
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1137 - I think the fact that we allow this is a
flaw.
The approach we are taking with JSR 107 is such:
1) If a cache is non-transactional, transactional threads accessing the cache throw an
exception.
2) If a cache is transactional, threads must have an ongoing transaction. If not, an
exception is thrown, unless:
3) Auto-commit is configured to be true. In this case, if a non-transactional thread
accesses the cache, a tx is started, work done, and the tx auto-committed.
See
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jsr107/WW-ObwfFEbI - and feel free to chime on
on that list as well. :-)
This is another relevant and interesting thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jsr107/iFo20hxQKSw
Cheers
Manik
On 9 Jun 2011, at 20:31, Manik Surtani wrote:
Good summary, Mircea. Breaking it down - and the specific design as
well in the JIRAs - makes it seem almost trivial to implement. ;)
On 24 May 2011, at 22:36, Mircea Markus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is re:
http://community.jboss.org/wiki/PossibleLockingImprovements
>
> I've created JIRAs for the locking optimisations as follows:
>
> #1:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1131
Keep in mind the LockingInterceptor delegates a lot of the copyOnWrite (of CacheEntries)
and the corresponding locking to the EntryFactoryImpl. This too would probably need to be
subclassed.
> #2: this seems to be just a particular case of #4
> #3:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1132
Looks good, however I'm concerned about the key comparator and how this would
deterministically order keys. Basing order on hashcode can lead to collisions (and if
using the default Object.hashcode breaks down completely). And we can't *require*
that users provide one; we'd need to provide a sensible - if suboptimal - default.
> #4:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1137
Paolo's concerns are very valid. Vector clocks to determine order of application on
non-primary owner node is one mechanism that would work; another may be that each node
only ever communicates with the primary owner. And the primary owner then has the
responsibility of propagating prepares and commits to other peers. This will mean
eventual consistency though, since concurrent readers would always have to read from the
primary owner since reading from other owners of an entry may result in stale data.
Another potential problem here is failover. You should discuss how you intend to deal
with failure in the primary owner, with different transactions at various stages of
completion.
Cheers
Manik
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
twitter.com/maniksurtani
Lead, Infinispan
http://www.infinispan.org
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
twitter.com/maniksurtani
Lead, Infinispan
http://www.infinispan.org