[infinispan-dev] SingleJoinTest#testTransactional failure

[Mircea Markus]

On 30 Nov 2010, at 17:25, Manik Surtani wrote:

> 
> On 30 Nov 2010, at 17:08, Mircea Markus wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 30 Nov 2010, at 17:03, Manik Surtani wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 30 Nov 2010, at 16:51, Mircea Markus wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 30 Nov 2010, at 16:42, Vladimir Blagojevic wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 10-11-30 1:35 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
>>>>>> On 30 Nov 2010, at 14:30, Vladimir Blagojevic wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 10-11-30 10:49 AM, Vladimir Blagojevic wrote:
>>>>>>>> I like your solution. It seems to be less disruptive to ongoing
>>>>>>>> transactions then the other two solutions.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> How would you safely detect that K is locked by another tx and thus skip
>>>>>>>> locking?
>>>>>>> I do *not* think I can do the following in LockingInterceptor:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> public Object visitInvalidateCommand(InvocationContext ctx, InvalidateCommand command) throws Throwable {
>>>>>>> try {
>>>>>>>    if (command.getKeys() != null) {
>>>>>>>       for (Object key : command.getKeys()) {
>>>>>>>          if(!lockManager.isLocked(key))
>>>>>>>              entryFactory.wrapEntryForWriting(ctx, key, false, true, false, false, false);
>>>>>>>       }
>>>>>>>    }
>>>>>>>    return invokeNextInterceptor(ctx, command);
>>>>>> Perhaps you only want to run invokeNext for the keys for which you acquired locks?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would love to but I do not see a method wrapEntryforWritingIfYouCan :-) What do you do in these kinds of situations? Set timeout to 10 msec and catch TimeoutException?
>>>> My point is you don't want to invalidate(invoke next) keys for which you don't have the locks. These would be invalidated(i.e. removed) at commit time.
>>> 
>>> Right, provided the tx knows to invalidate these keys at commit (or rollback).  Right?
>> At commit/rollback, the tx can iterate over they keys involved (ones brought here by prepare): if the key is no longer mapped to this node then simply remove it; otherwise apply the change. 
> 
> Not unless L1 is enabled and you *want* the entry in L1 there.
even if the entry is removed from L1 this is not incorrect (at most sub-optimal).
> --
> Manik Surtani
> manik at jboss.org
> Lead, Infinispan
> Lead, JBoss Cache
> http://www.infinispan.org
> http://www.jbosscache.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev