Google App Engine atomic section?

Question

• Say you retrieve a set of records from the datastore (something like: select * from MyClass where reserved='false').

• how do i ensure that another user doesn't set the reserved is still false?

I've looked in the Transaction documentation and got shocked from google's solution which is to catch the exception and retry in a loop.

Any solution that I'm missing - it's hard to believe that there's no way to have an atomic operation in this environment.

(btw - i could use 'syncronize' inside the servlet but i think it's not valid as there's no way to ensure that there's only one instance of the servlet object, isn't it? same applies to static variable solution)

Any idea on how to solve?

(here's the google solution:

http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/datastore/transactions.html#Entity_Groups

look at:

Key k = KeyFactory.createKey("Employee", "k12345");
Employee e = pm.getObjectById(Employee.class, k);
e.counter += 1;
pm.makePersistent(e);

'This requires a transaction because the value may be updated by another user after this code fetches the object, but before it saves the modified object. Without a transaction, the user's request will use the value of counter prior to the other user's update, and the save will overwrite the new value. With a transaction, the application is told about the other user's update. If the entity is updated during the transaction, then the transaction fails with an exception. The application can repeat the transaction to use the new data'

Horrible solution, isn't it?

Answer 1

You are correct that you cannot use synchronize or a static variable.

You are incorrect that it is impossible to have an atomic action in the App Engine environment. (See what atomic means here) When you do a transaction, it is atomic - either everything happens, or nothing happens. It sounds like what you want is some kind of global locking mechanism. In the RDBMS world, that might be something like "select for update" or setting your transaction isolation level to serialized transactions. Neither one of those types of options are very scalable. Or as you would say, they are both horrible solutions :)

If you really want global locking in app engine, you can do it, but it will be ugly and seriously impair scalability. All you need to do is create some kind of CurrentUser entity, where you store the username of the current user who has a global lock. Before you let a user do anything, you would need to first check that no user is already listed as the CurrentUser, and then write that user's key into the CurrentUser entity. The check and the write would have to be in a transaction. This way, only one user will ever be "Current" and therefore have the global lock.

Answer 2

Do you mean like this:

   public void func(Data data2) {

        String query = "select from " + objectA.class.getName()
                + " where reserved == false";
        List<objectA> Table = (List<objectA>) pm.newQuery(
                query).execute();

        for (objectA row : Table)
        {
            Data data1 = row.getData1();
            row.setWeight(JUtils.CalcWeight(data1, data2));
        }

        Collections.sort(Table, new objectA.SortByWeight());

        int retries = 0;
        int NUM_RETRIES = 10;
        for (int i = 0; i < Table.size() ; i++)
        {   
            retries++;      
            pm.currentTransaction().begin(); //    <---- BEGIN
            ObjectA obj = pm.getObjectById(Table.get(i).class, Table.get(i).getKey());
            if (obj .getReserved() == false)   // <--- CHECK if still reserved
                obj.setReserved(true);
            else
                break;      

            try
            {
                pm.currentTransaction().commit();
                break;
            } 
            catch (JDOCanRetryException ex)
            {
                if (j == (NUM_RETRIES - 1))
                {
                    throw ex;
                }
                i--; //so we retry again on the same object
            }
        }
        }