[GitHub] [geode] agingade edited a comment on pull request #6659: GEODE-9404: Do not log error message if sender is not configured.

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

agingade edited a comment on pull request #6659:
URL: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6659#issuecomment-873305224


   > > > > @pivotal-eshu
   > > > > It looks like the Tx code is trying to assess Gateway sender requirement to support GEODE-7971 in TX code. Which doesn't seems right.
   > > > > The "getLastTransactionEvent" should just return the last event in the transaction; currently it is doing it by "callbacks.get(callbacks.size() - 1);" which also seems to be error prone or inefficient.
   > > > > In "firePendingCallbacks" it could have iterated over the list using size index:
   > > > > for (int i=0; i<callbaack.size(); i++){
   > > > > ee.getRegion().invokeTXCallbacks(EnumListenerEvent.AFTER_DESTROY, ee, true, (i+1) == size() /_isLastTrasaction_/);
   > > > > }
   > > > > Please correct me if i am missing anything.
   > > > 
   > > > 
   > > > It was implemented that way to put the logic of getting the last transaction event in another class although it is as simple as getting the last element.
   > > > Also, this logic could detect misconfigurations that can only be detected at runtime (second check in `getLastTransactionEvent()`), then the caller of getLastTransactionEvent() could detect it by means of the exception and set all the events as the last in the transaction. Why do this? because if not all events in the transaction go to the same senders (misconfiguration), that would imply that some senders will not get all the events for the transaction but could try if group-transaction-events is set to complete the transaction in the batch, by looking for the last event in the transaction which could never come (delaying the batch sending) or may come but not guaranteeing that the rest of the events for the transaction were sent in the batch (because they may not have reached the sender).
   > > > The first check of `getLastTransactionEvent()` was added in order to avoid the cost of the second check if no sender had group-transaction-events set to true. In that case, it is irrelevant to return the last transaction event or null because it will not be used although, it could make more sense to return the last transaction event.
   > > 
   > > 
   > > It looks like the GEODE-7971 tried to use grouping with the existing way of "invokeTXCallbacks()", where client, wan, cache-listener notification are done one event from transaction at a time. Instead it could have invoked wan separately from "firePendingCallbacks"; which has all the TX events in one group.
   > > E.g.:
   > > firePendingCallbacks() {
   > > invokeTxCallbackForClientCacheLisener(getPendingCallbacks());
   > > invokeTxCallbackForWan(getPendingCallbacks());
   > > }
   > > Then there was no need to tag last transaction event.
   > > Please correct me if i am missing anything.
   > > And calling "configError" for an TX entry not part of specific sender seems to be wrong; why would it be a error; think about the case where TX uses helper/lookup region entry/value to calculate a final result and other site is only interested in the final result, this is not an error, this is the most expected behavior.
   > > E.g.:
   > > getBonusIncreatementFromBonusRegion();
   > > updateNewSalaryForEmployee(); // The region or final value other wan site is interested in.
   > > I think for now we need to change the naming of the methods to be more meaningful (based on what they are doing):
   > > "getLastTransactionEvent" to "getLastTransactionEventForGroupedWANSender()"
   > > Instead of "ServiceConfigurationError" return null or boolean. As the new change is doing.
   > 
   
   > Tagging the last transaction event is needed by `SerialGatewaySenderQueue` and `ParallelGatewaySenderQueue` to make sure that, when group-transaction-events is enabled, batches do not contain incomplete transactions. The way to assure that is to check that for every transaction in the batch (events are tagged with the transaction event), there is an event for that transaction that is the last event in the transaction (there is an event tagged as last transaction event).
   > I do not see why your changes avoid the need for tagging the last transaction event.
   > 
   Thinking more about this, I see what you are saying...
   The other option could have been, separating WAN callback and creating a single event/message for all the entries in transaction. May be this is too much. 
   
   > Secondly, having events for a transaction that will not be replicated by all senders (when some of the senders have group-transaction-events set to true) could POSSIBLY be a configuration error.
   > Let me illustrate it with an example:
   > Let's suppose that we have a system with two senders, sender1 and sender2, both with group-transaction-events set to true.
   > Now let's suppose that a transaction (t1) arrives to Geode with two events: event1 (create a) and event2 (create b).
   > Let's suppose that event1 is to be replicated by sender1 (but not sender2) and event 2 is to be replicated by sender2 (but not sender1).
   > The last event for the transaction will be event2 and it will be tagged as such.
   > What we will see happening is that even1 arrives to sender1's queue. When event1 is added to a batch and the batch is to be sent, it will be checked if all events for the transaction to which even1 belongs (t1) are in the batch. As there is only one event and it is not the last event in the the transaction, the batch creator will try to get the missing events for the transaction but it will never get them because they will never arrive, the last event in the transaction will not be on the sender1 queue but it will be on the sender2 queue.
   > At the same time, event2 will arrive to sender2's queue. When this event is added to a batch and the batch is to be sent, it will be checked if all transactions are complete. For t1, as we have the last event for the transaction (event2), it will be considered that it is so. Nevertheless, as not all events for the transaction are sent to this sender, the assumption would be wrong.
   
   I understand why the lastTransactionEvent; but I don't see how its a configuration error...When you say configuration error, are you meaning sender configuration or setting grouping configuration for a sender. In any case, it is different usecase but is not an error. Application have their own requirement of sending/managing data in different sites. 
   
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: notifications-unsubscribe@geode.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org