Talk:Commitment ordering

message: *I don't know about the topic but this article needs a severe cleanup per the Manual of style.  For starters, it needs a single opening paragraph that encapsulates the main concepts, then start with section breaks and the table of contents. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: for additional discussion relating to Commitment ordering. - JCLately (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: See [[Talk:Global serializability#Are the experts experts?]]

message: The comment (see below) for The CO voting deadlock theorem has been removed. Though it describes a situation where no vote occurs, this is still a situation of missing votes and a deadlock. It is resolved by two competing mechanisms: 1. local cycle resolution described below, and 2. atomic commitment protocol timeout for registered transactions with no votes (unlikely to win over local mechanism). Thus this is a different situation from the usual, but not a real exception to the theorem, if we are a little more flexible with the term "voting deadlock."
The removed comment:
:Comment: Formally, a rare exception exists, not of concern: When all the databases involved with the cycle are SS2PL based, it is possible (rarely) that no vote occurs. In such case no voting deadlock can happen. The highest probability instance of such rare event involves two transactions on two simultaneous opposite cycles. Such global deadlocks/cycles are not of concern since they overlap with local cycles, which are resolved locally (portions of local cycles generate a global one; to see this, split each global transaction (node) to local subtransactions (its portions confined each to a single database); a directed edge exists between transactions if an edge exists between any respective local subtransactions; a cycle is local if all its edges originate from a cycle among subtransactions of the same database, and global if not; global and local can overlap: a same cycle among transactions can result from several different cycles among subtransactions, and be both local and global). The formal issue is resolved by modifying the definition of a global cycle, and excluding this rare type of cycles, which consist of portions of local cycles.
Comps (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation described can happen only if each local sub-transactions can have more than one process or thread. In this case some local atomic commitment protocol (separate from the global) is needed for local atomicity before voting for the global. Now some local cycles may translate to local voting-deadlocks for the local protocol, and be resolved either by a local cycle elimination mechanism or automatically by the local atomic commitment protocol (racing).  Comps (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment removed from article  

message: # Citation method 
# Assessment tag
--  Comps (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  See [[User talk:Jwoodger#Commitment ordering questions]] 

message: The article uses Parenthetical referencing. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing. Thus why the tag? --Comps (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parenthetical referencing ''is'' inline citation (not footnotes only) 

message: This article is a mathematical. No Math formulas but very careful phrasing. Make sure content does not change meaning. Pls do not change text if meaning is unclear to you. In this case please discuss it here. Thanks. --Comps (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing: Handle with caution 

message: This article is incomprehensible. 
This article has paragraphs that start with 'Furthermore' or 'In addition'.  This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
This article has sentences like "Each not-CO-compliant database system is augmented with a CO component (the Commitment Order Coordinator - COCO) which orders the commitment events for CO compliance, with neither data-access nor any other transaction operation interference. As such CO provides a low overhead, general solution for global serializability (and distributed serializability)".  See my first point.
I am aware that this article survived an AfD.  The content may well be notable.  As a qualified 'computer programmer' (not that that counts for much), I have to honestly say that I can't tell.  It is poorly written.  See my first point.
This article needs to be changed.  It needs to be easily understood.  It needs other editors to rewrite it so that it can be understood.
It needs a 'Simple english' approach.
Cheers, Colonel Tom 10:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an academic paper, not an encyclopedia entry. 

message: A search finds what appears to be Mr. Raz repeating the content here into:
Serializability
Global serializability
Concurrency control
Distributed concurrency control
Two-phase locking
Schedule (computer science)
Global concurrency control
Deadlock
Federated database system
Locks with ordered sharing
VO
Software transactional memory
Deadlock prevention algorithms
He also considers himself notable personally:
List of computer scientists
And there's another sock-puppet aborning:
User:Dingo1729/History of commitment ordering
Personally I think that Global concurrency control and Distributed concurrency control should  be replaced by a link to Concurrency control; Global serializability should be replaced by a link to Global serializability; Deadlock prevention algorithms should be replaced by a link to Deadlock; Locks with ordered sharing should be simply deleted; the entry for Raz in List of computer scientists should be removed; and the entry for databases in VO should be removed. None of the proposed removals add anything not already contained in the proposed links except more puffery by Mr. Raz.
Ivan
* This is outrageous. "The Raz infection is spreading" reminds of "The Jews infection" in Nazi slur. No place for such in Wikipedia. Similar "discussion" in 2011, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_science/Archive_10#User:Comps_.2F_Commitment_ordering, about "neutrality disputed" has been baseless as well, with no any fact given, no explanation, and no conclusion. This "discussion" was archived in March 2012. The only effect I see is multiple unexplained tags contaminating Wikipedia, and damage to the Snapshot isolation article. No place for unsupported such tags in Wikipedia, and should be urgently removed. Initiators of such discussions should be honest and conclude (in the discussions) that accusations made were unsubstantiated. 65.96.201.116 (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Raz infection is spreading