Issue 3361: Preventing calls in a rollback-only transaction (ots-rtf) Source: IONA (Mr. Derek Thomson, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: This is related to the discussion on propagating the transaction status in the transaction context. Can an OTS implementation prevent outgoing calls within the scope of a transaction that has been marked rollback only? Without nailing this down, we can't really say if we can transparently save any unnecessary operations after the transaction has been set to rollback only. There don't seem to be any words to this effect in the spec. I'm not sure if it's a valid optimization at all. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: February 25, 2000: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Sender: derek@ooc.com.au Message-ID: <38B5EA37.2A1FA719@ooc.com.au> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:34:31 +1000 From: Derek Thomson Organization: OOC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ots-rtf@omg.org CC: issues@omg.org Subject: Preventing calls in a rollback-only transaction Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: ^5Ud9a9!!!Bg_d9W)1!! Hi, This is related to the discussion on propagating the transaction status in the transaction context. Can an OTS implementation prevent outgoing calls within the scope of a transaction that has been marked rollback only? Without nailing this down, we can't really say if we can transparently save any unnecessary operations after the transaction has been set to rollback only. There don't seem to be any words to this effect in the spec. I'm not sure if it's a valid optimization at all. Regards, Derek Reply-To: From: "Eric Newcomer" To: , Cc: Subject: RE: Preventing calls in a rollback-only transaction Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 08:07:33 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bf81fc$b5e86030$a085413f@boston.amer.iona.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <38B5EA37.2A1FA719@ooc.com.au> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: MR+e9#$j!!meHe9p~o!! Rollback optimizations should be considered within the context of operations on data rather than operations within the ORB. The goal is to release context and associated locks as quickly as possible whenever a rollback is signaled by any participant. -----Original Message----- From: derek@ooc.com.au [mailto:derek@ooc.com.au] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 9:35 PM To: ots-rtf@omg.org Cc: issues@omg.org Subject: Preventing calls in a rollback-only transaction Hi, This is related to the discussion on propagating the transaction status in the transaction context. Can an OTS implementation prevent outgoing calls within the scope of a transaction that has been marked rollback only? Without nailing this down, we can't really say if we can transparently save any unnecessary operations after the transaction has been set to rollback only. There don't seem to be any words to this effect in the spec. I'm not sure if it's a valid optimization at all. Regards, Derek Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:30:26 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning To: Eric Newcomer cc: derek@ooc.com.au, ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Preventing calls in a rollback-only transaction In-Reply-To: <000001bf81fc$b5e86030$a085413f@boston.amer.iona.com> Message-ID: Organization: Object Oriented Concepts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: *5Z!!lJi!!T$,e9d; Rollback optimizations should be considered within the context of operations > on data rather than operations within the ORB. The goal is to release > context and associated locks as quickly as possible whenever a rollback is > signaled by any participant. Hmmm... That's not exactly what I'd like to know. Suppose a client invokes an operation on a transactional object. That object marks the transaction to be rolled back for some reason. Given that, I'd like to know whether it would be legal for all subsequent transactional invocations from that client to any other object to locally and immediately raise TRANSACTION_ROLLEDBACK? Cheers, Michi. -- Michi Henning +61 7 3891 5744 Object Oriented Concepts +61 4 1118 2700 (mobile) Suite 4, 904 Stanley St +61 7 3891 5009 (fax) East Brisbane 4169 michi@ooc.com.au AUSTRALIA http://www.ooc.com.au/staff/michi-henning.html Reply-To: From: "Eric Newcomer" To: "'Michi Henning'" Cc: , Subject: RE: Preventing calls in a rollback-only transaction Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:10:53 -0500 Message-ID: <001b01bf82c7$2cac37d0$a085413f@boston.amer.iona.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: USX!!/oF!!N6%e9'%G!! Control should not be returned to the client once rollback is indicated... -----Original Message----- From: Michi Henning [mailto:michi@ooc.com.au] Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 6:30 PM To: Eric Newcomer Cc: derek@ooc.com.au; ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Preventing calls in a rollback-only transaction On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Eric Newcomer wrote: > Rollback optimizations should be considered within the context of operations > on data rather than operations within the ORB. The goal is to release > context and associated locks as quickly as possible whenever a rollback is > signaled by any participant. Hmmm... That's not exactly what I'd like to know. Suppose a client invokes an operation on a transactional object. That object marks the transaction to be rolled back for some reason. Given that, I'd like to know whether it would be legal for all subsequent transactional invocations from that client to any other object to locally and immediately raise TRANSACTION_ROLLEDBACK? Cheers, Michi. -- Michi Henning +61 7 3891 5744 Object Oriented Concepts +61 4 1118 2700 (mobile) Suite 4, 904 Stanley St +61 7 3891 5009 (fax) East Brisbane 4169 michi@ooc.com.au AUSTRALIA http://www.ooc.com.au/staff/michi-henning.html Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 07:17:43 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning To: Eric Newcomer cc: derek@ooc.com.au, ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Preventing calls in a rollback-only transaction In-Reply-To: <001b01bf82c7$2cac37d0$a085413f@boston.amer.iona.com> Message-ID: Organization: Object Oriented Concepts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: U~Wd9"Zjd9d$1!!e6Qe9 On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Eric Newcomer wrote: > Control should not be returned to the client once rollback is indicated... How is that physically going to happen? The client makes a remote procedure call that never returns? That's not implementable as far as I can see... Cheers, Michi. Reply-To: From: "Eric Newcomer" To: "'Michi Henning'" Cc: , Subject: RE: Preventing calls in a rollback-only transaction Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:51:00 -0500 Message-ID: <000f01bf8385$2e4fe460$a085413f@boston.amer.iona.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: foNe90&/e9(#l!!f\0!! What I mean is control within the transaction should not be returned to the client. The transaction should be ended (i.e. rolled back) before control is returned to the client. Then the errors you're concerned about could not happen. Sorry for not being precise. -----Original Message----- From: Michi Henning [mailto:michi@ooc.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 4:18 PM To: Eric Newcomer Cc: derek@ooc.com.au; ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Preventing calls in a rollback-only transaction On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Eric Newcomer wrote: > Control should not be returned to the client once rollback is indicated... How is that physically going to happen? The client makes a remote procedure call that never returns? That's not implementable as far as I can see... Cheers, Michi. Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:15:22 -0800 From: Blake Biesecker To: derek@ooc.com.au Cc: ots-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 3361 -- OTS RTF issue Message-ID: <20001101121522.H22222@gemstone.com> References: <4.1.20000322145953.00b367a0@emerald.omg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre4i In-Reply-To: <4.1.20000322145953.00b367a0@emerald.omg.org>; from juergen@omg.org on Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 03:00:38PM -0500 X-Disclaimer: I only speak for myself, unless I expressly indicate otherwise. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: moed9[05e9 This is issue # 3361 > > Preventing calls in a rollback-only transaction > > This is related to the discussion on propagating the transaction status in the > transaction context. > > Can an OTS implementation prevent outgoing calls within the scope of a > transaction that has been marked rollback only? > > Without nailing this down, we can't really say if we can transparently save any > unnecessary operations after the transaction has been set to rollback only. > There don't seem to be any words to this effect in the spec. I'm not sure if > it's a valid optimization at all. > > ================================================================ > > Juergen Boldt > Senior Member of Technical Staff > > Object Management Group Tel. +1-781 444 0404 ext. 132 > 250 First Avenue, Suite 201 Fax: +1-781 444 0320 > Needham, MA 02494, USA Email: juergen@omg.org > > > > ================================================================