Alexey, Any updates?
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:19 PM, Dmitriy Govorukhin < dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alexey, > > Could you please add more description information for this task? [1] > Perhaps, base steps for implementation. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8475 > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Alexey Goncharuk < > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Another +1 for the true asynchronous approach. I remember a while ago one >> of the Ignite users raised a similar question regarding the *async method >> being blocked on establishing a TCP connection. >> >> As far as deadlocks go, I have a counter-example. Currently, we check the >> thread-local chain only for a single cache, so if I run the following >> code: >> cache1.getAsync(k1); >> cache2.getAsync(k2); >> then the deadlock is still possible, and I did not see a single user >> complaining about unexpected deadlocks. Rather than implementing this >> cross-cache chain (which would probably add another overhead), I would >> make >> it consistent and allow operations to be run in parallel. >> >> There are many use-cases when having true async operations dramatically >> improve performance. Consider, for example, a streaming example when keys >> are being pushed by a client to a cluster. Currently, to run effective >> processing, the user will have to use a data streamer with custom keys >> receiver which may be a huge usability downside. Async operations can >> utilize the cluster resources very efficiently. >> >> Finally, if we want to be on the safe side, we can keep the operation >> chain >> inside a transaction. I see absolutely no point in maintaining this chain >> outside of transactions. >> >> --AG >> >> 2018-05-14 16:01 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Govorukhin < >> dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com> >> : >> >> > Andrey, >> > >> > Do you prefer change behavior at runtime? >> > I guess will be better have different methods for getting cache instance >> > with fair and not fair sync. >> > >> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > +1 for fair async operations. >> > > >> > > But I don't like idea use withFairSync() method. We added xxxAsync() >> > > methods recently and withAsync() is deprecated. >> > > >> > > I think we should just make methods are async in nature and provide >> > > ability of switching to the old behaviour using flag or property. >> > > >> > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:00 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan >> > > <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > > Vladimir, >> > > > >> > > > In general I agree, but I do get greatly *close-minded* (pun >> intended) >> > > > whenever users' code that worked for the past several years all of a >> > > sudden >> > > > gets deadlocked after an upgrade. Making this feature optional is >> even >> > > > worse and more confusing. In this case the best action is no action >> at >> > > all. >> > > > >> > > > BTW, would be interesting to find out how Oracle async driver >> behaves >> > in >> > > > this case. >> > > > >> > > > D. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Vladimir Ozerov < >> voze...@gridgain.com >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Guys, >> > > >> >> > > >> To build a great product we should be open minded and look to the >> > > future, >> > > >> not to the past. >> > > >> >> > > >> Dima raised very valid point - why async is not async? Current >> > > programming >> > > >> culture and demanding performance requirements pushes users towards >> > > >> reactive-style programming. I do not want my thread to ever be >> > blocked. >> > > >> Instead, I want to send a number of concurrent commands and >> optionally >> > > >> subscribe to final result. So trully async API makes total sense to >> > me. >> > > >> >> > > >> But personally, my primary interest in this area is SQL. Oracle is >> > > >> preparing new async driver. ADBA - async database access. It was >> > > presented >> > > >> on recent JavaOne [1]. It is under active development right now - >> juse >> > > >> weave through the mailing list [2]. Some prototypes are already >> there >> > > [3]. >> > > >> PostgreSQL community even started adopted it [4]! >> > > >> >> > > >> I am not pushing for immediate actions, but at least we should >> > > understand >> > > >> which way the wind is blowing. As a mid-term goals I would propose >> to >> > > >> finally remove thread ID from our PESSIMISTIC transactions to allow >> > for >> > > >> suspend/resume in different threads. And as a next step I would >> think >> > on >> > > >> adopting async cache and SQL APIs. >> > > >> >> > > >> Vladimir. >> > > >> >> > > >> [1] >> > > >> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/ >> > > application-development/jdbc/ >> > > >> con1491-3961036.pdf >> > > >> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdbc-spec-discuss/ >> > > >> [3] https://github.com/oracle/oracle-db-examples/tree/master/ >> java/AoJ >> > > >> [4] https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/issues/978 >> > > >> >> > > >> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> > > dsetrak...@apache.org> >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:46 PM, Dmitriy Govorukhin < >> > > >> > dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > I will edit IGNITE-8475, and remove all part that belong to the >> > > public >> > > >> > api. >> > > >> > > Is it acceptable for you? >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Everything is acceptable, as long as the public API is safe :) >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
