Guys, so, do we need multiple concurrent transactions per connection? There are pros and cons for each approach. Difference between approaches:
One transaction at a time per connection: - This approach is used in RDBMS world and users got used to it - To use transactions concurrently users need to use different connections and get these connections via something like a connection pool - Easy to implement (in fact, PoC is already done) Multiple concurrent transactions per connection: - At least for java thin client, we can implement transaction per thread approach as implemented now for the thick client (perhaps other thin clients can implement the same abstraction) - There is also protocol change for all cache operations needed (to bind cache operation to the transaction) - Significant changes to all implemented clients are needed - Implementation on the server side is more complex What do you think? вт, 2 апр. 2019 г. в 16:29, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com>: > Ilya, > > > We should be able to multiplex several transactions using a single > Client connection. > In this case, we should significantly change cache operations syntax (for > each implemented client), to bind each operation to the transaction. > > > I want to also ask if "Number of entries participating in transaction > (may be approximate). 0 - default value." is needed. > I've tried to minimize API changes between thick and thin client to > simplify move from one to another. It's the only reason. But I agree with > you, the parameter is not very useful. > > > вт, 2 апр. 2019 г. в 14:48, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>: > >> Hello! >> >> Pavel, I agree with you thorougly. We should be able to multiplex several >> transactions using a single Client connection. This means adding >> Transaction id parameter to every affected cache operation / SQL statement >> (if applicable) to make sure we do cache operations on relevant >> transaction. >> >> This is how other things work in Ignite, such as communication. We do not >> open dozens of connections, we multiplex operations asynchronously through >> a single connection. >> >> I think that trying to pool Ignite connections will be highly >> inconvenient, >> since there is no existing infrastructure for such pooling (like there >> exists for JDBC). >> >> I want to also ask if "Number of entries participating in transaction (may >> be approximate). 0 - default value." is needed. Does it actually do >> anything in our tx protocol? Users of existing APIs are already confused >> by >> this parameter, if we could get rid of it in thin client protocol it would >> be nice clean-up. >> >> Regards, >> -- >> Ilya Kasnacheev >> >> >> вт, 2 апр. 2019 г. в 09:55, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: >> >> > Alex, >> > >> > > now we can only support one active transaction per connection >> > >> > I totally understand server-side and protocol limitations that are >> causing >> > this. >> > But I have no idea how to support this in .NET Thin Client, for example. >> > >> > It is thread-safe and can handle multiple async operations in parallel. >> > But with TX support we have to somehow switch to single-threaded mode to >> > avoid unexpected effects. >> > >> > Any ideas? >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 6:38 PM Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Dmitriy, thank you! >> > > >> > > Guys, I've created the IEP [1] on wiki, please have a look. >> > > >> > > [1] >> > > >> > > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-34+Thin+client%3A+transactions+support >> > > >> > > >> > > чт, 28 мар. 2019 г. в 14:33, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org>: >> > > >> > > > Hi, >> > > > >> > > > I've added permissions to account plehanov.alex >> > > > >> > > > Recently Infra integrated Apache LDAP with confluence, so it is >> > possible >> > > to >> > > > login using Apache credentials. Probably we can ask infra if extra >> > > > permissions to edit pages should be added for committers. >> > > > >> > > > Sincerely, >> > > > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > > > >> > > > ср, 27 мар. 2019 г. в 13:37, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com >> >: >> > > > >> > > > > Vladimir, >> > > > > >> > > > > About current tx: ok, then we don't need tx() method in the >> interface >> > > at >> > > > > all (the same cached transaction info user can store by himself). >> > > > > >> > > > > About decoupling transactions from threads on the server side: for >> > now, >> > > > we >> > > > > can start with thread-per-connection approach (we only can support >> > one >> > > > > active transaction per connection, see below, so we need one >> > additional >> > > > > dedicated thread for each connection with active transaction), and >> > > later >> > > > > change server-side internals to process client transactions in any >> > > server >> > > > > thread (not dedicated to this connection). This change will not >> > affect >> > > > the >> > > > > thin client protocol, it only affects the server side. >> > > > > In any case, we can't support concurrent transactions per >> connection >> > on >> > > > > the client side without fundamental changes to the current >> protocol >> > > > (cache >> > > > > operation doesn't bound to transaction or thread and the server >> > doesn't >> > > > > know which thread on the client side do this cache operation). In >> my >> > > > > opinion, if a user wants to use concurrent transactions, he must >> use >> > > > > different connections from a connection pool. >> > > > > >> > > > > About semantics of suspend/resume on the client-side: it's >> absolutely >> > > > > different than server-side semantics (we don't need to do >> > > suspend/resume >> > > > to >> > > > > pass transaction between threads on the client-side), but can't be >> > > > > implemented efficiently without implemented suspend/resume on >> > > > server-side. >> > > > > >> > > > > Can anyone give me permissions to create IEP on Apache wiki? >> > > > > >> > > > > ср, 27 мар. 2019 г. в 11:59, Vladimir Ozerov < >> voze...@gridgain.com>: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Alex, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > My comments was only about the protocol. Getting current info >> about >> > > > > > transaction should be handled by the client itself. It is not >> > > protocl's >> > > > > > concern. Same about other APIs and behavior in case another >> > > transaction >> > > > > is >> > > > > > attempted from the same thread. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Putting protocol aside, transaction support is complicated >> matter. >> > I >> > > > > would >> > > > > > propose to route through IEP and wide community discussion. We >> need >> > > to >> > > > > > review API and semantics very carefully, taking SUSPEND/RESUME >> in >> > > > count. >> > > > > > Also I do not see how we support client transactions efficiently >> > > > without >> > > > > > decoupling transactions from threads on the server side first. >> > > Because >> > > > > > without it you will need a dedicated server thread for every >> > client's >> > > > > > transaction which is slow and may even crash the server. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Vladimir. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:44 AM Alex Plehanov < >> > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Vladimir, what if we want to get current transaction info >> (tx() >> > > > > method)? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Does close() method mapped to TX_END(rollback)? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > For example, this code: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > try(tx = txStart()) { >> > > > > > > tx.commit(); >> > > > > > > } >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Will produce: >> > > > > > > TX_START >> > > > > > > TX_END(commit) >> > > > > > > TX_END(rollback) >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Am I understand you right? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > About xid. There is yet another proposal. Use some unique per >> > > > > connection >> > > > > > id >> > > > > > > (integer, simple counter) for identifying the transaction on >> > > > > > > commit/rollback message. The client gets this id from the >> server >> > > with >> > > > > > > transaction info and sends it back to the server when trying >> to >> > > > > > > commit/rollback transaction. This id is not shown to users. >> But >> > > also >> > > > we >> > > > > > can >> > > > > > > pass from server to client real transaction id (xid) with >> > > transaction >> > > > > > info >> > > > > > > for diagnostic purposes. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > And one more question: what should we do if the client starts >> a >> > new >> > > > > > > transaction without ending the old one? Should we end the old >> > > > > transaction >> > > > > > > implicitly (rollback) or throw an exception to the client? In >> my >> > > > > opinion, >> > > > > > > the first option is better. For example, if we got a >> previously >> > > used >> > > > > > > connection from the connection pool, we should not worry about >> > any >> > > > > > > uncompleted transaction started by the previous user of this >> > > > > connection. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > ср, 27 мар. 2019 г. в 11:02, Vladimir Ozerov < >> > voze...@gridgain.com >> > > >: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > As far as SUSPEND/RESUME/SAVEPOINT - we do not support them >> > yet, >> > > > and >> > > > > > > adding >> > > > > > > > them in future should not conflict with simple START/END >> > > > > > infrastructure. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:00 AM Vladimir Ozerov < >> > > > > voze...@gridgain.com >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I am not sure we need 5 commands. Wouldn't it be enough to >> > have >> > > > > only >> > > > > > > two? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > START - accepts optional parameters, returns transaction >> info >> > > > > > > > > END - provides commit flag, returns void >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Vladimir. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:26 AM Alex Plehanov < >> > > > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Sergey, yes, the close is something like silent rollback. >> > But >> > > we >> > > > > can >> > > > > > > > >> also implement this on the client side, just using >> rollback >> > > and >> > > > > > > ignoring >> > > > > > > > >> errors in the response. >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> ср, 27 мар. 2019 г. в 00:04, Sergey Kozlov < >> > > > skoz...@gridgain.com >> > > > > >: >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > Nikolay >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > Am I correctly understand you points: >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > - close: rollback >> > > > > > > > >> > - commit, close: do nothing >> > > > > > > > >> > - rollback, close: do what? (I suppose nothing) >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > Also you assume that after commit/rollback we may need >> to >> > > free >> > > > > > some >> > > > > > > > >> > resources on server node(s)or just do on client started >> > TX? >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:41 PM Alex Plehanov < >> > > > > > > > plehanov.a...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Sergey, we have the close() method in the thick >> client, >> > > it's >> > > > > > > > behavior >> > > > > > > > >> is >> > > > > > > > >> > > slightly different than rollback() method (it should >> > > > rollback >> > > > > if >> > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > >> > > transaction is not committed and do nothing if the >> > > > transaction >> > > > > > is >> > > > > > > > >> already >> > > > > > > > >> > > committed). I think we should support >> try-with-resource >> > > > > > semantics >> > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > > >> the >> > > > > > > > >> > > thin client and OP_TX_CLOSE will be useful here. >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Nikolay, suspend/resume didn't work yet for >> pessimistic >> > > > > > > > transactions. >> > > > > > > > >> > Also, >> > > > > > > > >> > > the main goal of suspend/resume operations is to >> support >> > > > > > > transaction >> > > > > > > > >> > > passing between threads. In the thin client, the >> > > transaction >> > > > > is >> > > > > > > > bound >> > > > > > > > >> to >> > > > > > > > >> > > the client connection, not client thread. I think >> > passing >> > > a >> > > > > > > > >> transaction >> > > > > > > > >> > > between different client connections is not a very >> > useful >> > > > > case. >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > вт, 26 мар. 2019 г. в 22:17, Nikolay Izhikov < >> > > > > > nizhi...@apache.org >> > > > > > > >: >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello, Alex. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > We also have suspend and resume operations. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I think we should support them >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > вт, 26 марта 2019 г., 22:07 Sergey Kozlov < >> > > > > > skoz...@gridgain.com >> > > > > > > >: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Looks like I missed something but why we need >> > > > OP_TX_CLOSE >> > > > > > > > >> operation? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Also I suggest to reserve a code for SAVEPOINT >> > > operation >> > > > > > which >> > > > > > > > >> very >> > > > > > > > >> > > > useful >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > to understand where transaction has been rolled >> back >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 6:07 PM Alex Plehanov < >> > > > > > > > >> > plehanov.a...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hello Igniters! >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I want to pick up the ticket IGNITE-7369 and >> add >> > > > > > > transactions >> > > > > > > > >> > support >> > > > > > > > >> > > > to >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > our thin client implementation. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I've looked at our current implementation and >> have >> > > > some >> > > > > > > > >> proposals >> > > > > > > > >> > to >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > support transactions: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Add new operations to thin client protocol: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > OP_TX_GET, 4000, Get current transaction >> for >> > > > client >> > > > > > > > >> connection >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > OP_TX_START, 4001, Start a new transaction >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > OP_TX_COMMIT, 4002, Commit transaction >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > OP_TX_ROLLBACK, 4003, Rollback transaction >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > OP_TX_CLOSE, 4004, Close transaction >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > From the client side (java) new interfaces >> will be >> > > > > added: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public interface ClientTransactions { >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public ClientTransaction txStart(); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public ClientTransaction >> > > > > > txStart(TransactionConcurrency >> > > > > > > > >> > > > concurrency, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > TransactionIsolation isolation); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public ClientTransaction >> > > > > > txStart(TransactionConcurrency >> > > > > > > > >> > > > concurrency, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > TransactionIsolation isolation, long timeout, >> int >> > > > > txSize); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public ClientTransaction tx(); // Get >> current >> > > > > > connection >> > > > > > > > >> > > > transaction >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public ClientTransactions withLabel(String >> > lb); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > } >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public interface ClientTransaction extends >> > > > > AutoCloseable { >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public IgniteUuid xid(); // Do we need it? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public TransactionIsolation isolation(); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public TransactionConcurrency >> concurrency(); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public long timeout(); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public String label(); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public void commit(); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public void rollback(); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > public void close(); >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > } >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > From the server side, I think as a first step >> > (while >> > > > > > > > >> transactions >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > suspend/resume is not fully implemented) we can >> > use >> > > > the >> > > > > > same >> > > > > > > > >> > approach >> > > > > > > > >> > > > as >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for JDBC: add a new worker to each >> > > > ClientRequestHandler >> > > > > > and >> > > > > > > > >> process >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > requests by this worker if the transaction is >> > > started >> > > > > > > > >> explicitly. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ClientRequestHandler is bound to client >> > connection, >> > > so >> > > > > > there >> > > > > > > > >> will >> > > > > > > > >> > be >> > > > > > > > >> > > > 1:1 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > relation between client connection and thread, >> > which >> > > > > > process >> > > > > > > > >> > > operations >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > in >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > a transaction. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Also, there is a couple of issues I want to >> > discuss: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > We have overloaded method txStart with a >> different >> > > set >> > > > > of >> > > > > > > > >> > arguments. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Some >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > of the arguments may be missing. To pass >> arguments >> > > > with >> > > > > > > > >> OP_TX_START >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > operation we have the next options: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > * Serialize full set of arguments and use some >> > > value >> > > > > for >> > > > > > > > >> missing >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > arguments. For example -1 for int/long types >> and >> > > null >> > > > > for >> > > > > > > > string >> > > > > > > > >> > > type. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > We >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > can't use 0 for int/long types since 0 it's a >> > valid >> > > > > value >> > > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > concurrency, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > isolation and timeout arguments. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > * Serialize arguments as a collection of >> > > > property-value >> > > > > > > pairs >> > > > > > > > >> > (like >> > > > > > > > >> > > > it's >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > implemented now for CacheConfiguration). In >> this >> > > case >> > > > > only >> > > > > > > > >> > explicitly >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > provided arguments will be serialized. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Which way is better? The simplest solution is >> to >> > use >> > > > the >> > > > > > > first >> > > > > > > > >> > option >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > and I >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > want to use it if there were no objections. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Do we need transaction id (xid) on the client >> > side? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > If yes, we can pass xid along with >> OP_TX_COMMIT, >> > > > > > > > OP_TX_ROLLBACK, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > OP_TX_CLOSE operations back to the server and >> do >> > > > > > additional >> > > > > > > > >> check >> > > > > > > > >> > on >> > > > > > > > >> > > > the >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > server side (current transaction id for >> connection >> > > == >> > > > > > > > >> transaction >> > > > > > > > >> > id >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > passed >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > from client side). This, perhaps, will protect >> > > clients >> > > > > > > against >> > > > > > > > >> some >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > errors >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > (for example when client try to commit outdated >> > > > > > > transaction). >> > > > > > > > >> But >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > currently, we don't have data type IgniteUuid >> in >> > > thin >> > > > > > client >> > > > > > > > >> > > protocol. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Do >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > we need to add it too? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Also, we can pass xid as a string just to >> inform >> > the >> > > > > > client >> > > > > > > > and >> > > > > > > > >> do >> > > > > > > > >> > > not >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > pass >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it back to the server with commit/rollback >> > > operation. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Or not to pass xid at all (.NET thick client >> works >> > > > this >> > > > > > way >> > > > > > > as >> > > > > > > > >> far >> > > > > > > > >> > > as I >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > know). >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > What do you think? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ср, 7 мар. 2018 г. в 16:22, Vladimir Ozerov < >> > > > > > > > >> voze...@gridgain.com >> > > > > > > > >> > >: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > We already have transactions support in JDBC >> > > driver >> > > > in >> > > > > > TX >> > > > > > > > SQL >> > > > > > > > >> > > branch >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > (ignite-4191). Currently it is implemented >> > through >> > > > > > > separate >> > > > > > > > >> > thread, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > which >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is not that efficient. Ideally we need to >> finish >> > > > > > > decoupling >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > transactions >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > from threads. But alternatively we can change >> > the >> > > > > logic >> > > > > > on >> > > > > > > > >> how we >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > assign >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > thread ID to specific transaction and >> > > "impersonate" >> > > > > thin >> > > > > > > > >> client >> > > > > > > > >> > > > worker >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > threads when serving requests from multiple >> > users. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Denis Magda >> < >> > > > > > > > >> dma...@apache.org> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Here is an original discussion with a >> > reference >> > > to >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > JIRA >> > > > > > > > >> > > ticket: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble >> > > > . >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com/Re-Transaction-operations-using-the-Ignite-Thin-Client- >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Protocol-td25914.html >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Denis >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Dmitriy >> > > Setrakyan >> > > > < >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitriy. I don't think we have a >> design >> > > > > proposal >> > > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > >> > > > transaction >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > support >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > in thin clients. Do you mind taking this >> > > > > initiative >> > > > > > > and >> > > > > > > > >> > > creating >> > > > > > > > >> > > > an >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > IEP >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > on >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Wiki? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > D. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Dmitriy >> > > > > Govorukhin < >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I've seen a lot of discussions about >> thin >> > > > client >> > > > > > and >> > > > > > > > >> binary >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > protocol, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > but I >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > did not hear anything about >> transactions >> > > > > support. >> > > > > > Do >> > > > > > > > we >> > > > > > > > >> > have >> > > > > > > > >> > > > some >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > draft >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > this purpose? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > As I understand we have several >> problems: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > - thread and transaction have hard >> > > related >> > > > > (we >> > > > > > > use >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > thread-local >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > variable >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > and thread name) >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > - we can process only one >> transaction >> > at >> > > > the >> > > > > > same >> > > > > > > > >> time >> > > > > > > > >> > in >> > > > > > > > >> > > > one >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > thread >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (it >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > mean we need hold thread per >> client. If >> > > > > connect >> > > > > > > 100 >> > > > > > > > >> thin >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > clients >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 1 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > server node, then need to hold 100 >> > thread >> > > > on >> > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > >> server >> > > > > > > > >> > > > side) >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Let's discuss how we can implement >> > > > transactions >> > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > >> > thin >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > client. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Sergey Kozlov >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > GridGain Systems >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > www.gridgain.com >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > -- >> > > > > > > > >> > Sergey Kozlov >> > > > > > > > >> > GridGain Systems >> > > > > > > > >> > www.gridgain.com >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
