You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tinkerpop.apache.org by Robert Dale <ro...@gmail.com> on 2017/07/13 12:22:18 UTC
[DISCUSS] Bytecode transactions
Stephen stated:
> You can't control transactions using GLVs/withRemote. One request is
> basically a transaction. The future of bytecode/GLVs has twisted our
> transaction model around a bit. Best practices for transactions are still
> being discussed and considered.
Why not allow a sessioned client to send bytecode?
Robert Dale
Re: [DISCUSS] Bytecode transactions
Posted by pieter gmail <pi...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
There is some tricky foot work required server side as a transaction is
often bound to a thread. Not sure how one would rebind subsequent
request to a particular thread.
`javax.transaction.TransactionManager` has methods like `suspend` and
`resume` but can't say I have ever used it.
I think Neo4j actually implements the `javax.transaction` interfaces but
not sure if they support `suspend` and `resume`.
For Sqlg which simply uses the JDBC driver there is no transaction manager.
Cheers
Pieter
On 13/07/2017 14:41, Stephen Mallette wrote:
> I don't like increasing reliance on sessions, but that's a possibility.
> There is no technical reason it wouldn't work that I can think of.
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Robert Dale <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stephen stated:
>>
>>> You can't control transactions using GLVs/withRemote. One request is
>>> basically a transaction. The future of bytecode/GLVs has twisted our
>>> transaction model around a bit. Best practices for transactions are still
>>> being discussed and considered.
>>
>> Why not allow a sessioned client to send bytecode?
>>
>>
>> Robert Dale
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Bytecode transactions
Posted by Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>.
I don't like increasing reliance on sessions, but that's a possibility.
There is no technical reason it wouldn't work that I can think of.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Robert Dale <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stephen stated:
>
> > You can't control transactions using GLVs/withRemote. One request is
> > basically a transaction. The future of bytecode/GLVs has twisted our
> > transaction model around a bit. Best practices for transactions are still
> > being discussed and considered.
>
>
> Why not allow a sessioned client to send bytecode?
>
>
> Robert Dale
>