Re: [Modeling-users] Re: Consistency among different processes?

[Sebastien B. <sbi...@us...>]

Federico Heinz <fh...@vi...> wrote:
[...]
> > Okay, I'll try hard to make this happen this week-end, then. BTW, I know
> > there should be documentation for the framework's architecture.
> > Hopefully this will be done one day, but the todo list is sooo long...
>=20
> Sounds familiar... :-) We'll have to communicate stuff internally, so
> we're likely to produce *some* form of representation of the
> architecture. If we do, we'll definitely share it.

  That would be great. Do not hesitate to share it early, this is
  something we can work on together if you wish.

> > You can think about these notifications as a mean to provide a specific
> > and application-specific behaviour for minimizing failures under
> > optimistic locking strategies, at least when in a single
> > address-space.
>=20
> It sounds to me that what you'd be getting is more like early
> announcement that a conflict is coming, but the conflict-resolution
> logic will still have to be there.

Right, the conflict-resolution still needs to be there, but that's a
annoucement that a "conflict" has already occurred: an object is now
out-of-sync because another EC saved its changes (inside a single
address-space, we rely on the same db-cache). On the other hand, we'll
also need an other conflict resolution (possibly the same) when an other
process has modified the data --that's when optimistic locking fails.

> > Moreover, these notifications are really needed if for
> > any reason you ''choose'' the no-locking policy (which is the only
> > supported policy by now, and the reason why the User's Guide details the
> > problem when using one EC per session).
>=20
> This is, of course, true. But if we're talking priorities, I think
> optimistic locking would be first, because you'll pretty much need its
> infrastructure to resolve the conflict you've just been informed of.

My ideas are not really clear by now, so I'll wait a little before
stating anything here --I suspect both are a little more than just
complementary, but can't find a clear explanation now.

> >   Does all this make sense wrt your own claims & requirements?
>=20
> It does. And I'm not making claims or requiring things... I'm just
> exploring possibilities.
>=20
> By the way, I *like* this whole exchange! Makes me feel good about
> working with you.

Kewl ;) And I'm sure good things are to happen --and esp. your
experience with vertical mapping can be quite a driving force for
implementing it.

    My turn to have some rest now. Regards,

-- S=E9bastien.