This article is part of a series on the Fabric Transfer API. Link to the home page of the series.
When interacting with inventories, we often want to perform multiple related operations. For example, we might want to either perform all of the following actions, or none of them:
consumeWater(); consumeLava(); produceObsidian();
In the absence of transactions, such a process is usually implemented with the following “simulation” pattern:
if (canConsumeWater() && canConsumeLava() && canProduceObsidian()) { // "Simulation" succeeded, let's actually do it doConsumeWater(); doConsumeLava(); doProduceObsidian(); }
While this seems correct, it is possible that doConsumeWater
succeeds but doConsumeLava
fails. For example, if we need to use some power to consume a fluid. Consider the following sequence:
canConsumeWater
: we have water and 1 unit of power → true
.canConsumeLava
: we have lava and 1 unit of power → true
.doConsumeWater
: we have water and 1 unit of power → OK. This time we consume the power.doConsumeLava
: we have lava but we do not have power anymore.We are now in a broken state where water was consumed but lava cannot be consumed. Either we abort the process and accept that water was deleted, or we continue the process and we still produce the obsidian. Either we delete resources that we shouldn’t, or we create resources that we shouldn’t.
There exist workarounds for this problem in some cases, but in an ideal world we could do simply store a copy of the internal state of the game, and revert to it if we are unhappy with what happened:
// Store a full copy of the game state if (consumeWater() && consumeLava() && produceObsidian()) { // All good, all three steps worked! } else { // Some step failed - restore the state back to our old copy. }
This is exactly what the transaction system will allow us to do:
// Start a transaction - equivalent to a copy of the relevant game state. try (Transaction tx = Transaction.openOuter()) { if (consumeWater(tx) && consumeLava(tx) && produceObsidian(tx)) { // All good, all three steps worked - confirm the transaction. tx.commit(); } else { // Some step failed - restore the state back to the transaction start. // As we will see below, abort() is the default and can be omitted. tx.abort(); } }
To better illustrate how transactions operate, let’s assume that we have a transactional integer with the following methods:
public class TransactionalInteger { // Create a new instance public TransactionalInteger(int startingValue) { ... } // Get current integer value public int get() { ... } // Transaction-aware increment function. public void increment(TransactionContext transaction) { ... } }
We will see later how these methods can be implemented, for now let’s focus on how the state can be manipulated with transactions.
Let’s start with a simple example, showing a single transaction that gets aborted:
TransactionalInteger o = new TransactionalInteger(0); o.get(); // returns 0 try (Transaction t1 = Transaction.openOuter()) { o.get(); // still 0 o.increment(t1); o.get(); // returns 1 // At the end of try, the transaction is aborted if it was not committed. } o.get(); // returns 0 again
Here is how transactions can be visualized:
We can represent this in a graph with branches:
Here is the branching graph for that first example:
We can also have nested transactions, i.e. sub-transactions. They work in the same way as the so called “outer” transactions.
TransactionalInteger o = new TransactionalInteger(0); o.get(); // returns 0 try (Transaction t1 = Transaction.openOuter()) { o.get(); // still 0 o.increment(t1); o.get(); // returns 1 try (Transaction t2 = t1.openNested()) { o.increment(t2); o.increment(t2); o.get(); // returns 3 try (Transaction t3 = t2.openNested()) { o.increment(t3); o.get(); // returns 4 // At the end of try, the transaction is aborted if it was not committed. } o.get(); // returns 3 again because t3 transaction was aborted t2.commit(); } o.get(); // returns 3 t1.commit(); } o.get(); // returns 3
Here is the corresponding graph:
You might have noticed that sometimes we use Transaction
and sometimes we use TransactionContext
. The former has some additional functions that are only relevant to the code that opened the transaction. The rule of thumb is:
Transaction
in code that opens and closes transactions.TransactionContext
in code that implements transaction-aware operations.
In this section we explain how TransactionalInteger
can be written. For that, we will use SnapshotParticipant
that will do the heavy lifting for us. ALWAYS use SnapshotParticipant
, NEVER use the raw primitives directly (TransactionContext#addCallback
and TransactionContext#addOuterCallback
).
A SnapshotParticipant
saves copies of its internal state and restores them when required. These copies are referred to as “snapshots”, hence the name. Using a SnapshotParticipant
is generally quite simple:
Integer
.SnapshotParticipant<internal state>
. Here we will add extends SnapshotParticipant<Integer>
to our class.createSnapshot
and readSnapshot
.updateSnapshots(transaction)
before any change to the internal state.Let’s start with the following template:
public class TransactionalInteger { private int value; // Create a new instance public TransactionalInteger(int startingValue) { this.value = startingValue; } // Get current integer value public int get() { return value; }
First, we implement the state saving and restoring logic:
public class TransactionalInteger extends SnapshotParticipant<Integer> { // Previous methods omitted @Override protected Integer createSnapshot() { // Return a copy or "snapshot" of our internal state return value; } @Override protected void readSnapshot(Integer snapshot) { // Restore our internal state to a previous snapshot this.value = snapshot; } }
Once this is done, we can implement increment
as follows. Always remember to call updateSnapshots
before the internal state is modified.
public void increment(TransactionContext transaction) { // First, save a snapshot of the state if needed updateSnapshots(transaction); // Then, modify the value value++; }
That’s it!
If we need to perform an operation after a change, we can override onFinalCommit
. It will only be called when the SnapshotParticipant
is involved in a transaction that is committed. In other words, it will only be called if some modification made its way back to the bottom of the branching graph.
For example, if we modified the internal state of a block entity, we should make sure to call markDirty
at the end:
@Override protected void onFinalCommit() { // Make sure to call markDirty blockEntity.markDirty(); }
This section explains the details of how the SnapshotParticipant
system works. Feel free to skip it if this is not interesting to you.
The goal of SnapshotParticipant
is to bridge the gap between the transaction programming model (opening a transaction copies the game state, etc…) and an efficient implementation.
The SnapshotParticipant
stores up to one snapshot per transaction - tracking the state to which it should revert if said transaction were aborted. To minimize data copies, the snapshots are only created lazily.
For performance reasons, aborting or committing a transaction just runs a list of actions, but does not worry about more complex things such as nesting or state copies. See Transaction#addCloseCallback
. All of the state management logic is thus part of the SnapshotParticipant
itself.
Now that we have been through this background knowledge, here is how the SnapshotParticipant
operates:
updateSnapshots
is called:createSnapshot
to save a snapshot, and add a close callback.readSnapshot
to revert the state changes.addOuterCloseCallback
. The callback will call onFinalCommit
.Hopefully that gives an overview of what is happening under the hood. You should now be ready to read the source code of SnapshotParticipant.