From: Brian Oliver <brian.oliver(a)oracle.com&gt; Subject: Re: Transaction Semantics when using CacheLoaders and CacheWriters Date: August 1, 2013 5:55:14 PM GMT+02:00 To: jsr107(a)googlegroups.com Reply-To: jsr107(a)googlegroups.com Thanks for your feedback. It's much appreciated. Interestingly Oracle Coherence mostly takes much the same approach. Transactional (XA) Multi-Version-Concurrency-Control Caches don't allow Cache Loaders or Cache Writers (or Expiry) aka: a stronger form of Option 2. Personally I don't really classify these Caches as Caches (as eviction and expiry isn't supported). In essence they are really a transactional map, but leverage the Coherence NamedCache interface. Ultimately it's pure "Data Grid" functionality. While I think developers may like to think Option 1 is possible, when anyone explains the "cost" of this, they reluctantly decide to use Option 2, or move to using Entry Processors - which provides the atomicity for the most part. Historically Coherence also supported a form of Option 3 - but that also presents some challenges. I'm trying hard to find an answer to these challenges, but the way forward is unclear. What I can tell from our discussions here, in this group and at conferences, those that have shown interest in "transactionality" of Caches aren't really wanting Caches. They want an "fast in-memory" data-stores, perhaps like a map or nosql, to transact against, because they don't want to transact against a database. Why? They are seen as bottleneck or they are seen as being to "slow" and are trying to solve the architectural problem of the layer below their application tier. They like to call these "Caches", because they are "in-memory", but technically they aren't Caches. When you get down to it, ultimately the features and semantics being requested aren't really caches. So perhaps this is where the Data Grid specification can come into play? With my "standardization hat" on, my biggest concern is that anytime a developer needs to change their application, say between vendors, especially to adopt transactions that are "implementation specific", it leads me to believe there's something wrong with the specification. Personally I think we should be making it "easier" to adopt not harder. On Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:55:21 AM UTC-4, Brian Martin wrote: Brian, I think you are spot-on with the problem and this is why we don't currently (in WebSphere eXtreme Scale) allows Loaders to be part of a distributed transaction that cross containers [your option 2]. If the transaction is to a single container, then we allow the local transaction (a believe this is equivalent to a variation of your option 3). As your dialog indicates, the scenario is messy and I don't like the state we are in currently with different capabilities depending on how many containers are enlisted in your transaction. At the moment, I don't have a better suggestion but I think your concern is valid and we should hash at a solution the community agrees with. Brian Martin IBM WebSphere eXtreme Scale On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Brian Oliver <brian....(a)oracle.com&gt; wrote: Hi All, I'd like to propose the challenge of how we think vendors should deal with transactions in the context of Caches with CacheLoaders/Writers configured, especially in the context of a distributed Cache. While this is an "implementation concern", it's very important to see how this may be implemented as it very much effects the API design. As part of reviewing the specification with the Java EE team, and in particular how multiple-servers will interact, we've found a few challenges. In the spirit of openness, I've added some commentary to the following issue: https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/153 Currently I feel that the way the API is defined, all CacheLoader and CacheWriter operations will need to be performed "locally" which fundamentally prevents efficient (or any) implementation in a highly concurrent and distributed manner. Furthermore, interaction across multiple application processes, Java SE or otherwise may be a problem, simply because the API doesn't provide enough fidelity for CacheLoader and CacheWriter operations to be part of a larger transaction. eg: there's no "prepare" and "commit" for CacheWriters! Just "store". Even with a few changes, as I've suggested in the issue above, I honestly feel we're essentially forcing vendors to implement fully recoverable XA Transaction Managers as part of their Caching infrastructure, simply to coordinate transactions across the underlying Cache Writers in a distributed setting. Why? because the API basically implies this coordination would need to be performed by the Cache implementation itself - even in "local" mode! eg: Say a developer starts a transaction that updated n entries, those of which are partitioned across n servers. As part of the "commit", all n servers will need to take care of committing, say to memory. Behind this are the Cache Writers, which also need to be coordinated. The entries need to be stored as part of the Caching contract. Unfortunately our current API provides no mechanism to coordinately this, eg: share a global transaction to a single database across said the n Cache Writers. Without this what essentially happens at the moment is that each CacheWriter starts their own individual transaction, not attached to or part of the application transaction. That may seem reasonable to some, but consider the case where there is a parent-child or some other relationship between the cache entries that are being updated (which is why your using a transaction in the first place). If individual transactions are used by the Cache Writers and are committed in some non-deterministic order (as there is no ordering constraints or ways to control this in the API) database integrity constraints are likely to be violated. So while the "commit" to the Cache may seem to be atomic, the "stores" to the underlying Cache Writers aren't. Essentially there are a few options (as I've covered in the issue). 1. Allow a global transaction to be provided to all of the Cache Writers. Wow... that would be pretty crazy and horribly slow. Every server would need to contact the transaction manager, do a bunch of work, etc, just to set things up. This sort of contradicts the entire reason people would be using a cache in the first place. To even achieve this I think we'd need to change the CacheLoader/Writer API. Specifically we'd need to add "prepare", "commit" and "rollback". 2. Don't allow CacheLoaders/Writers to be configured with Caches. I think this is pretty easy to do, but again, wow... that would force developers to change their application code significantly to use Transactional Caches with external stores. 3. Only allow "local" transactions to be performed. This would ultimately mean that Caches would be the last-local-resource in XA transactions (not too bad, though it's a challenge if there are others as well). Additionally in the distributed case, while entries may be distributed, the loading / writing would always occur locally. This works, but significantly reduces scalability as all "versioning" of data being touched may need to be held locally. It's highly likely a huge amount of distributed locks would be required (if the Cache isn't using MVVC), which we know is horribly slow. eg: imagine a transaction with a "putAll" containing a few million entries. In pessimistic mode, an implementation may need to do a lot of work locally to ensure versioning is held and updated correctly. It may also need to perform a few million locks! Saying that a developer shouldn't use "putAll" with transactions probably isn't a solution either. Personally I'm not sure if any of this is desirable? I haven't really seen much of this discussed or addressed. Perhaps I'm missing something? I'd certainly be happy to do some further research! The bottom line is that while we're trying to define an API that provides developers with a means to improve the performance, through-put and scalability of an application through the temporary storage of data, the requirements to implement transactions, even optionally, may throw much of the benefit away. It would be great to get your thoughts on this. I don't think we can get away with the statement "transactions are implementation specific" in the specification, especially if the API doesn't provide enough fidelity to cover these simple use-cases. -- Brian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jsr107" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsr107+un...(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jsr107" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jsr107+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.