I put some comments on the proposal on the wiki. btw what are we voting on? Just curious as I wasn't sure if we were voting for the current proposal or whether we should continue this discussion?
I like the idea of having transactional ops be sent together in a batch if possible and it would be an iterative improvement, whether that is a complete solution to a larger problem, I think might be beyond what Alberto was proposing? Again I am not exactly sure if this was intended to be a vote but I would +1 the attempt and continuation of the discussion/proposal and probably -0 the current proposal as there are some ideas/things to iron out. On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:49 PM Udo Kohlmeyer <ukohlme...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Hi there Alberto, > > It's a "-1" from me. > > I have raised my concerns in the RFC comments. To summarize, whilst I > like the idea (I had never thought of that problem you are trying to > solve), I don't know how this will behave at scale. Just looking at some > of the comments, I think it is safe to say that many have similar feelings. > > I like the notion of this proposal, but I'm not convinced that the > solution is actually going solve the problem. I think it might solve > only a very small part of the problem. > > In essence you are proposing a distributed transaction over WAN and I > don't see enough in the proposal to convince me that we have a solution > that will solve this problem. > > --Udo > > On 3/25/20 8:04 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Could you please review the RFC for "Gateway sender to deliver > transaction events atomically to receivers"? > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Gw+sender+to+deliver+transaction+events+atomically+to+receivers > > > > Deadline for comments is Wednesday, April 1st, 2020, > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alberto G. > > >
