Nesting Transactions
|
View:
New views
4 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
Nesting Transactions
by Ross Rick
::
Rate this Message:
Hi all,
I wonder if anyone has tried nesting transactions with prevayler before. To be specific, lets imagine two calls to the same transaction done sequentially. LocalList.add( prevayler.execute ( new GetNutsTransaction( "Walnuts") ; LocalList.add( prevayler.execute ( new GetNutsTransaction ("Pecans") ; What I would like to do is make those two calls within the same transaction without being forced to code a sort of composite transaction. Of course, what I am really getting at is the ability to arbitrarily start a transaction and then have that bundle all of the smaller transactions until I explicitly commit. As a more realistic example, I would want to do something like this :
Has anyone tried this ?? Known issues? Any red flags pop up for you looking at this? Thx, Rick ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe go to the end of this page: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/prevayler-discussion _______________________________________________ "Databases in Memoriam" -- http://www.prevayler.org |
|
|
Re: Nesting Transactions
by Justin T. Sampson-2
::
Rate this Message:
That's kind of the opposite of Prevayler's design. :)
Prevayler's whole architecture is based on the fact that transactions are encapsulated into objects. This allows transactions to be journaled, replicated, and executed in a streamlined concurrent pipeline. Could you say more about why you don't want to write a "composite transaction"? There may be other things people have done to address similar concerns. Cheers, Justin On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Ross Rick <rick@...> wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe go to the end of this page: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/prevayler-discussion _______________________________________________ "Databases in Memoriam" -- http://www.prevayler.org |
|
|
Re: Nesting Transactions
by Klaus Wuestefeld
::
Rate this Message:
You can make that increaseNutPurchases(...) method into an anonymous
transaction with the same amount of code or less. :) On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Justin T. Sampson<justin@...> wrote: > That's kind of the opposite of Prevayler's design. :) > > Prevayler's whole architecture is based on the fact that transactions are > encapsulated into objects. This allows transactions to be journaled, > replicated, and executed in a streamlined concurrent pipeline. > > Could you say more about why you don't want to write a "composite > transaction"? There may be other things people have done to address similar > concerns. > > Cheers, > Justin > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Ross Rick <rick@...> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> I wonder if anyone has tried nesting transactions with prevayler before. >> >> To be specific, lets imagine two calls to the same transaction done >> sequentially. >> >> LocalList.add( prevayler.execute ( new GetNutsTransaction( "Walnuts") ; >> >> LocalList.add( prevayler.execute ( new GetNutsTransaction ("Pecans") ; >> >> What I would like to do is make those two calls within the same >> transaction without being forced to code a sort of composite transaction. >> Of course, what I am really getting at is the ability to arbitrarily start a >> transaction and then have that bundle all of the smaller transactions until >> I explicitly commit. As a more realistic example, I would want to do >> something like this : >> >> public void increaseNutPurchases(String[] nutTypes, int pctIncrease) { >> >> Transaction txn = startLongishTransaction(); >> >> try { >> for (String nutType : nutTypes) { >> >> List growers = prevayler.execute(new GetGrowerQuery(nutType)); >> for (Grower grower : growers) { >> >> prevayler.execute(new UpdateBuyQuantityTransaction(grower, >> pctIncrease)); >> >> } >> } >> } >> >> catch (Exception e) { >> txn.rollback(); >> } >> txn.commit(): >> >> } >> >> Has anyone tried this ?? Known issues? Any red flags pop up for you >> looking at this? >> Thx, >> Rick >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe go to the end of this page: >> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/prevayler-discussion >> _______________________________________________ >> "Databases in Memoriam" -- http://www.prevayler.org >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe go to the end of this page: > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/prevayler-discussion > _______________________________________________ > "Databases in Memoriam" -- http://www.prevayler.org > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe go to the end of this page: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/prevayler-discussion _______________________________________________ "Databases in Memoriam" -- http://www.prevayler.org |
|
|
Re: Nesting Transactions
by Ross Rick
::
Rate this Message:
I actually just want to do real nesting of the transactions, I don't want to violate the ideas, I want to extend them by starting a serialization ( I get that the transaction is itself serialized to the journal), lumping them all in until done and then writing it out. Almost like how serialization recurses through containers.
In general, I want to tie together multiple smaller transactions for rollback or commit en masse and I could hide all of the complexity with start and end transactions. I am exposing a public API that has both simple CRUD operations and larger operations (like various mass importers). I would like to compose the larger actions out of smaller ones but roll back on any fail. I would also like my consumers to be able delineate those transactions themselves, but don't really want to have to explain the pattern to them. Sure.. as Klaus points out, I can construct an anonymous transaction. I figured that would make it possible to simply set a "start" point .. do a bunch of transactions and then commit them. I can live without it but it would have been nice for 3rd party consumers of my API to build transactions in a way they are used to. R On Jun 30, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Justin T. Sampson wrote: That's kind of the opposite of Prevayler's design. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe go to the end of this page: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/prevayler-discussion _______________________________________________ "Databases in Memoriam" -- http://www.prevayler.org |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
