Re: Commons-transaction abandoned?

[Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>]

The current version is 1.2 (released in 2007).

1.3-SNAPSHOT is then the subsequent version in development, but it
looks as though it was quickly renamed to 2.0.

2.0 currently has 6 of 9 issues resolved, the most recent being
reported and applied in Sept 2009, and 2 of the open issues were
opened a month ago.

So I wouldn't call it dead - there just hasn't been much to do. Your
email does raise the question of whether 2.0 should be released or
not. I've cc'd Oliver who has been doing most of the work.

Hen

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM, John Ericksen <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I came across the file transaction capabilities in commons-transaction today
> which was exactly what I was looking for.  To my disapointment, however, it
> looks like there hasn't been an update to the project for over 2 years.  The
> home page says the current version is a SNAPSHOT and from my search of the
> mailing list, it looks like 2.0 is upcoming (in 2007?).
>
> My question is, is the commons-transaction project abandoned, is there a
> better library out there for transactional file system operations?
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> John
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Commons-transaction abandoned?

[TylsBurt <a4...@drdrb.com>]

Hi!


Oliver Zeigermann wrote
> From
> my (and others) point of view it can not be achieved by *any*
> implementation. So if you are asking whether there is another
> implementation that is more suitable, my answer is "there can't be
> any".

Yours is an interesting statement..
Could you provide some explanations to support your point of view?
Wouldn't it be interesting to understand what are the differences between
Commons Transactions and other projects (i.e. XADisk) which claim to be able
to reach atomicity.
Thanks!



--
View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/Commons-transaction-abandoned-tp1475847p4653676.html
Sent from the Commons - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Commons-transaction abandoned?

[Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Oliver,

On 3/5/2010 5:01 AM, Oliver Zeigermann wrote:
> The project has been abandoned by me as I lost faith in one of its
> goal - ACID properties (especially atomicity) on any file system. From
> my (and others) point of view it can not be achieved by *any*
> implementation. So if you are asking whether there is another
> implementation that is more suitable, my answer is "there can't be
> any".

I only read this in passing, so if there's a lot of discussion of this
elsewhere, I'd be happy to get a reference, but...

java.io.File.createNewFile() claims to provide atomic file creation, and
java.nio.channels.FileLock presumably has file-locking capabilities.

Is this just something that can't be attained through a pure-Java
library, and writing native code for all possible environments isn't
your idea of a good time? :) Or, am I misunderstanding the problem.

Thanks,
- -chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkuRjNsACgkQ9CaO5/Lv0PDqDgCeJ0p9IyL0EjYU6ydIPT3RlMgq
ECMAoLBEf5Kr/Z2MEZ1ZEuzkboVuqP8j
=azuq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Commons-transaction abandoned?

[Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Oliver Zeigermann
<ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks!
>
> What Henri says is completely right.
>
> The project has been abandoned by me as I lost faith in one of its
> goal - ACID properties (especially atomicity) on any file system. From
> my (and others) point of view it can not be achieved by *any*
> implementation. So if you are asking whether there is another
> implementation that is more suitable, my answer is "there can't be
> any".

Apologies I'm not familiar with transaction - but does this apply to
the released versions (1.0 to 1.2) - are they flawed or is this
something that only applies to the unreleased 2.0 code base?

Niall

> Certain parts of the 2.0 code are quite reasonable, though, especially
> the locking and deadlock detection part. That's why I have not been
> determined what to do with the project. Certainly 2.0 is better than
> 1.x by any means, but I still think it should not be released as its
> promises can not be kept.
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> - Oliver
>
> 2010/3/5 Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>:
>> The current version is 1.2 (released in 2007).
>>
>> 1.3-SNAPSHOT is then the subsequent version in development, but it
>> looks as though it was quickly renamed to 2.0.
>>
>> 2.0 currently has 6 of 9 issues resolved, the most recent being
>> reported and applied in Sept 2009, and 2 of the open issues were
>> opened a month ago.
>>
>> So I wouldn't call it dead - there just hasn't been much to do. Your
>> email does raise the question of whether 2.0 should be released or
>> not. I've cc'd Oliver who has been doing most of the work.
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM, John Ericksen <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I came across the file transaction capabilities in commons-transaction today
>>> which was exactly what I was looking for.  To my disapointment, however, it
>>> looks like there hasn't been an update to the project for over 2 years.  The
>>> home page says the current version is a SNAPSHOT and from my search of the
>>> mailing list, it looks like 2.0 is upcoming (in 2007?).
>>>
>>> My question is, is the commons-transaction project abandoned, is there a
>>> better library out there for transactional file system operations?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Commons-transaction abandoned?

[Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>]

I'm trying to understand what goals can't be met. Oliver is implying that none of it is possible, but I don't understand how it would be impossible to have transactional collections as the web page mentions.

I agree that I would like to understand what the challenges are before closing it down.

Ralph

On Mar 6, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

> I think the next step would be to raise the issue on the dev list -
> retiring Transaction because xyz. Then if no one has any bright ideas
> or helps you have any bright ideas then we can go ahead and move it
> onto the retirement side.
> 
> It's a pretty strong message to say "This is just not implementable. "
> so I imagine we'd want to bash the thoughts around a bit to make sure
> they hold up.
> 
> Hen
> 
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Oliver Zeigermann
> <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I thought about it for a while and I really think it is true. Of
>> course you could change what is on the tin, but then it would no
>> longer be of major interest.
>> 
>> Thus, except anyone else wants to bring it further, the project is dead.
>> 
>> What would be the steps for its funeral (feels bad as this would be
>> the second Apache project funeral I am involved in)?
>> 
>> - Oliver
>> 
>> 2010/3/5 Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>:
>>> That would be dead then :)
>>> 
>>> If it's not possible - I think we should retire the library asap with
>>> such a statement. Do not use - it's not able to do what it says on the
>>> tin.
>>> 
>>> Is there any more conversation we should have before determining that
>>> a) it's misleading and b) there shouldn't be a 1.3 or 2.0 release with
>>> the improved if not great functionality?
>>> 
>>> Hen
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Oliver Zeigermann
>>> <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Folks!
>>>> 
>>>> What Henri says is completely right.
>>>> 
>>>> The project has been abandoned by me as I lost faith in one of its
>>>> goal - ACID properties (especially atomicity) on any file system. From
>>>> my (and others) point of view it can not be achieved by *any*
>>>> implementation. So if you are asking whether there is another
>>>> implementation that is more suitable, my answer is "there can't be
>>>> any".
>>>> 
>>>> Certain parts of the 2.0 code are quite reasonable, though, especially
>>>> the locking and deadlock detection part. That's why I have not been
>>>> determined what to do with the project. Certainly 2.0 is better than
>>>> 1.x by any means, but I still think it should not be released as its
>>>> promises can not be kept.
>>>> 
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> - Oliver
>>>> 
>>>> 2010/3/5 Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> The current version is 1.2 (released in 2007).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1.3-SNAPSHOT is then the subsequent version in development, but it
>>>>> looks as though it was quickly renamed to 2.0.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2.0 currently has 6 of 9 issues resolved, the most recent being
>>>>> reported and applied in Sept 2009, and 2 of the open issues were
>>>>> opened a month ago.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So I wouldn't call it dead - there just hasn't been much to do. Your
>>>>> email does raise the question of whether 2.0 should be released or
>>>>> not. I've cc'd Oliver who has been doing most of the work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hen
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM, John Ericksen <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I came across the file transaction capabilities in commons-transaction today
>>>>>> which was exactly what I was looking for.  To my disapointment, however, it
>>>>>> looks like there hasn't been an update to the project for over 2 years.  The
>>>>>> home page says the current version is a SNAPSHOT and from my search of the
>>>>>> mailing list, it looks like 2.0 is upcoming (in 2007?).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My question is, is the commons-transaction project abandoned, is there a
>>>>>> better library out there for transactional file system operations?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> John
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Commons-transaction abandoned?

[Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>]

I think the next step would be to raise the issue on the dev list -
retiring Transaction because xyz. Then if no one has any bright ideas
or helps you have any bright ideas then we can go ahead and move it
onto the retirement side.

It's a pretty strong message to say "This is just not implementable. "
so I imagine we'd want to bash the thoughts around a bit to make sure
they hold up.

Hen

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Oliver Zeigermann
<ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought about it for a while and I really think it is true. Of
> course you could change what is on the tin, but then it would no
> longer be of major interest.
>
> Thus, except anyone else wants to bring it further, the project is dead.
>
> What would be the steps for its funeral (feels bad as this would be
> the second Apache project funeral I am involved in)?
>
> - Oliver
>
> 2010/3/5 Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>:
>> That would be dead then :)
>>
>> If it's not possible - I think we should retire the library asap with
>> such a statement. Do not use - it's not able to do what it says on the
>> tin.
>>
>> Is there any more conversation we should have before determining that
>> a) it's misleading and b) there shouldn't be a 1.3 or 2.0 release with
>> the improved if not great functionality?
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Oliver Zeigermann
>> <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Folks!
>>>
>>> What Henri says is completely right.
>>>
>>> The project has been abandoned by me as I lost faith in one of its
>>> goal - ACID properties (especially atomicity) on any file system. From
>>> my (and others) point of view it can not be achieved by *any*
>>> implementation. So if you are asking whether there is another
>>> implementation that is more suitable, my answer is "there can't be
>>> any".
>>>
>>> Certain parts of the 2.0 code are quite reasonable, though, especially
>>> the locking and deadlock detection part. That's why I have not been
>>> determined what to do with the project. Certainly 2.0 is better than
>>> 1.x by any means, but I still think it should not be released as its
>>> promises can not be kept.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> - Oliver
>>>
>>> 2010/3/5 Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>:
>>>> The current version is 1.2 (released in 2007).
>>>>
>>>> 1.3-SNAPSHOT is then the subsequent version in development, but it
>>>> looks as though it was quickly renamed to 2.0.
>>>>
>>>> 2.0 currently has 6 of 9 issues resolved, the most recent being
>>>> reported and applied in Sept 2009, and 2 of the open issues were
>>>> opened a month ago.
>>>>
>>>> So I wouldn't call it dead - there just hasn't been much to do. Your
>>>> email does raise the question of whether 2.0 should be released or
>>>> not. I've cc'd Oliver who has been doing most of the work.
>>>>
>>>> Hen
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM, John Ericksen <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I came across the file transaction capabilities in commons-transaction today
>>>>> which was exactly what I was looking for.  To my disapointment, however, it
>>>>> looks like there hasn't been an update to the project for over 2 years.  The
>>>>> home page says the current version is a SNAPSHOT and from my search of the
>>>>> mailing list, it looks like 2.0 is upcoming (in 2007?).
>>>>>
>>>>> My question is, is the commons-transaction project abandoned, is there a
>>>>> better library out there for transactional file system operations?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Commons-transaction abandoned?

[Oliver Zeigermann <ol...@gmail.com>]

I thought about it for a while and I really think it is true. Of
course you could change what is on the tin, but then it would no
longer be of major interest.

Thus, except anyone else wants to bring it further, the project is dead.

What would be the steps for its funeral (feels bad as this would be
the second Apache project funeral I am involved in)?

- Oliver

2010/3/5 Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>:
> That would be dead then :)
>
> If it's not possible - I think we should retire the library asap with
> such a statement. Do not use - it's not able to do what it says on the
> tin.
>
> Is there any more conversation we should have before determining that
> a) it's misleading and b) there shouldn't be a 1.3 or 2.0 release with
> the improved if not great functionality?
>
> Hen
>
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Oliver Zeigermann
> <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Folks!
>>
>> What Henri says is completely right.
>>
>> The project has been abandoned by me as I lost faith in one of its
>> goal - ACID properties (especially atomicity) on any file system. From
>> my (and others) point of view it can not be achieved by *any*
>> implementation. So if you are asking whether there is another
>> implementation that is more suitable, my answer is "there can't be
>> any".
>>
>> Certain parts of the 2.0 code are quite reasonable, though, especially
>> the locking and deadlock detection part. That's why I have not been
>> determined what to do with the project. Certainly 2.0 is better than
>> 1.x by any means, but I still think it should not be released as its
>> promises can not be kept.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> - Oliver
>>
>> 2010/3/5 Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>:
>>> The current version is 1.2 (released in 2007).
>>>
>>> 1.3-SNAPSHOT is then the subsequent version in development, but it
>>> looks as though it was quickly renamed to 2.0.
>>>
>>> 2.0 currently has 6 of 9 issues resolved, the most recent being
>>> reported and applied in Sept 2009, and 2 of the open issues were
>>> opened a month ago.
>>>
>>> So I wouldn't call it dead - there just hasn't been much to do. Your
>>> email does raise the question of whether 2.0 should be released or
>>> not. I've cc'd Oliver who has been doing most of the work.
>>>
>>> Hen
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM, John Ericksen <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I came across the file transaction capabilities in commons-transaction today
>>>> which was exactly what I was looking for.  To my disapointment, however, it
>>>> looks like there hasn't been an update to the project for over 2 years.  The
>>>> home page says the current version is a SNAPSHOT and from my search of the
>>>> mailing list, it looks like 2.0 is upcoming (in 2007?).
>>>>
>>>> My question is, is the commons-transaction project abandoned, is there a
>>>> better library out there for transactional file system operations?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Commons-transaction abandoned?

[Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>]

That would be dead then :)

If it's not possible - I think we should retire the library asap with
such a statement. Do not use - it's not able to do what it says on the
tin.

Is there any more conversation we should have before determining that
a) it's misleading and b) there shouldn't be a 1.3 or 2.0 release with
the improved if not great functionality?

Hen

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Oliver Zeigermann
<ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks!
>
> What Henri says is completely right.
>
> The project has been abandoned by me as I lost faith in one of its
> goal - ACID properties (especially atomicity) on any file system. From
> my (and others) point of view it can not be achieved by *any*
> implementation. So if you are asking whether there is another
> implementation that is more suitable, my answer is "there can't be
> any".
>
> Certain parts of the 2.0 code are quite reasonable, though, especially
> the locking and deadlock detection part. That's why I have not been
> determined what to do with the project. Certainly 2.0 is better than
> 1.x by any means, but I still think it should not be released as its
> promises can not be kept.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> - Oliver
>
> 2010/3/5 Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>:
>> The current version is 1.2 (released in 2007).
>>
>> 1.3-SNAPSHOT is then the subsequent version in development, but it
>> looks as though it was quickly renamed to 2.0.
>>
>> 2.0 currently has 6 of 9 issues resolved, the most recent being
>> reported and applied in Sept 2009, and 2 of the open issues were
>> opened a month ago.
>>
>> So I wouldn't call it dead - there just hasn't been much to do. Your
>> email does raise the question of whether 2.0 should be released or
>> not. I've cc'd Oliver who has been doing most of the work.
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM, John Ericksen <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I came across the file transaction capabilities in commons-transaction today
>>> which was exactly what I was looking for.  To my disapointment, however, it
>>> looks like there hasn't been an update to the project for over 2 years.  The
>>> home page says the current version is a SNAPSHOT and from my search of the
>>> mailing list, it looks like 2.0 is upcoming (in 2007?).
>>>
>>> My question is, is the commons-transaction project abandoned, is there a
>>> better library out there for transactional file system operations?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org

Re: Commons-transaction abandoned?

[Oliver Zeigermann <ol...@gmail.com>]

Folks!

What Henri says is completely right.

The project has been abandoned by me as I lost faith in one of its
goal - ACID properties (especially atomicity) on any file system. From
my (and others) point of view it can not be achieved by *any*
implementation. So if you are asking whether there is another
implementation that is more suitable, my answer is "there can't be
any".

Certain parts of the 2.0 code are quite reasonable, though, especially
the locking and deadlock detection part. That's why I have not been
determined what to do with the project. Certainly 2.0 is better than
1.x by any means, but I still think it should not be released as its
promises can not be kept.

Any thoughts?

- Oliver

2010/3/5 Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>:
> The current version is 1.2 (released in 2007).
>
> 1.3-SNAPSHOT is then the subsequent version in development, but it
> looks as though it was quickly renamed to 2.0.
>
> 2.0 currently has 6 of 9 issues resolved, the most recent being
> reported and applied in Sept 2009, and 2 of the open issues were
> opened a month ago.
>
> So I wouldn't call it dead - there just hasn't been much to do. Your
> email does raise the question of whether 2.0 should be released or
> not. I've cc'd Oliver who has been doing most of the work.
>
> Hen
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM, John Ericksen <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I came across the file transaction capabilities in commons-transaction today
>> which was exactly what I was looking for.  To my disapointment, however, it
>> looks like there hasn't been an update to the project for over 2 years.  The
>> home page says the current version is a SNAPSHOT and from my search of the
>> mailing list, it looks like 2.0 is upcoming (in 2007?).
>>
>> My question is, is the commons-transaction project abandoned, is there a
>> better library out there for transactional file system operations?
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> John
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@commons.apache.org