> 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?
Sorry, just +1'd because I like the idea, not to imply we're voting on anything. I thought that's a general apache convention during a discussion. > In essence you are proposing a distributed transaction over WAN I wouldn't equate this with distribution transactions at all. This is just trying to group transaction events together in a batch. I don't think we need to solve the whole distribution transaction problem with this proposal. I remember someone trying to accomplish this same thing on top of geode with TransactionListener that dumped into a separate region or something like that. Barry might remember more details. Having a --group-transaction-events options seems much more user friendly. -Dan On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 4:19 PM Udo Kohlmeyer <u...@apache.com> wrote: > My vote was to implement said solution. > > But it is a HUGE +1 to continue the discussion to resolve the issue > identified! > > --Udo > > On 3/25/20 4:14 PM, Jason Huynh wrote: > > 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. > >>> >
