[Ovirt-devel] Re: Thoughts about taskomatic redesign

[steve linabery]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Chris Lalancette <clalance at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 3)  Transaction support in taskomatic (hi slinaberry!).  I'm not sure about this
> one; we are modifying state external to the database, so I'm not sure
> "rolling-back" a transaction means a whole hill of beans to us.  In fact, I
> might argue that rolling back is worse in this case; if you modified external
> state, and then crashed, when you come back you might "roll-back" your VM state
> to something that's totally invalid, and you'll need to be corrected by
> host-status anyway.  Does anyone have further thoughts here?

Only that this is the tough nut I was unable to crack. And...

>
> THOUGHTS:
> Interestingly, I think we can evolve the current taskomatic to do this, rather
> than re-writing the thing from scratch.  Since we cleaned up error reporting
> handling and reporting, I actually feel a lot better about the state of
> taskomatic.  It really just needs corner/error cases better handled, and then
> introducing some of the above concepts one at a time.  Is there anything in
> taskomatic right now that people are particularly unhappy about that might
> warrant a re-write?

...that the 2PC necessity (or not?) in taskomatic was the only issue
that warranted a rewrite in my mind.

I've been away from taskomatic for a while now; I will take a look at
it again. I am glad to read that the exception handing/reporting has
been worked on; that was another thing that was an issue.

Steve