Daniele & Federico,
in the past few days we have discussed about a possible integration between LIXA and Psycopg2.
>> I assume the function should be called with a Python interpreter well
>> initialized, but if lixa is imported by a Python process and the above
>> code is called by a function wrapped in a Python call I assume all the
>> conditions required are met. Of course everything is pretty
>> experimental: psycopg doesn't offer (yet) a C api, nor the import
>> file are designed to be used outside the library: if the approach
>> works we can provide a Python C API properly done.
> That's what I was thinking too but then psycopg users will lose custom
> connection (and cursor) objects. :/ IMHO the best approach would be for LIXA to
> extend its concept of "profile" to include connection factories and
> let Python code to register custom profiles and connection factories. I
> understand that is probably alien to what LIXA does now but would increase
> acceptance by Pythonistas.
After some replies, two possible solutions emerged:
1. the LIXA Transaction Manager open the connection(s) to the database(s) and pass it/them to Python libraries with a dedicated method. LIXA could open a DB API connection type (Python) and map it to C for its own usage; casting a native C connection type (PGconn *) seems the worst case for Psycopg2 integration.
a. the role of the Transaction Manager is not subverted: the T.M. manages the connections to the Resource Managers
b. LIXA logic requires minor technical updates, necessary to deal with a cross-language environment (C/Python), but no functional change is involved
c. Python developers could use familiar connectionObject objects
c. Python developers must change a little of their logic when using the LIXA Transaction Manager (it happens to C/C++ programmers for Encina/TXSeries/Tuxedo and Java programmers for Jboss, WebSphere, WebLogic, any JEE application server)
2. the Application Program opens the connection(s) to the database(s) and pass it/them to LIXA Transaction Manager. LIXA should register the connections instead of directly manage them; the connection would be "connectionObject".
a. highest acceptance level from Python community
b. changing the role of the Transaction Manager and the Application Program with respect of well consolidated DTP environments like C and Java could be incautious: some consistency and/or robustness issues might emerge in the future because it's basically a not explored battlefield (the "happy path" seems to work, but guessing what happens when a crashed system restarts is a completely different matter)
c. LIXA logic requires a lot of rework: a concept of "dynamic profile" is probably necessary; the logic related to consistency and isolation must be re-designed to avoid undesired automatic recoveries
d. some XA compliant Resource Managers could complain: when you use Oracle and DB2 for XA Distributed Transaction Processing, you will not open a connection using the standard function, you will use a specific XA function (xa_open) available inside the "XA switch file" (a dynamically loaded module) supplied by the vendor. It may be the functions are interchangeable, it may not: only experiments will give the right answer. Unfortunately, dealing with proprietary software outside documented use cases (xa_open usage) could be a nightmare.
I do think the discussion was really interesting and a lot of important information was retrieved.
LIXA can not live alone, nor it can live supporting only PostgreSQL: by design LIXA must integrate with as many Resource Managers as possible. LIXA must support as many programming languages as possible, too.
I think it's time to suspend this discussion and transfer it to the teams are developing equivalent modules for other Resource Managers.
In the C/C++ environment, LIXA works with PostgreSQL, MySQL, Oracle and DB2; I will poll MySQL, Oracle and DB2 Python guys to pick-up their feedbacks.
Stay tuned, I will come back in the next few days/weeks.
In response to
psycopg by date
|Next:||From: Daniele Varrazzo||Date: 2012-02-13 22:43:11|
|Subject: Re: Psycopg2 and LIXA|
|Previous:||From: Federico Di Gregorio||Date: 2012-02-13 09:17:24|
|Subject: Re: Psycopg2 and LIXA|