mcms

What prevents a transaction from being prematurely aborted while there are some intents in flight?

From what I understand, transaction A can still be replicating intents and transaction B, not knowing that coordinator for transaction A is still at work, start a recovery process. This makes transaction A abort which could be prevented by waiting for intents of A to be successfully replicated.

Assuming the owner is smart and does not want anyone to detect that such a thing exists, then no one can. As soon as the owner feels that someone else knows, they will send a message back as a warning and tell themselves to be more careful.

For the world in general, indeed, it is better than having a dead or hardly-maintained project (which needs financial incentives from project owners). Don't you agree?

Just wondering how did you replace Zookeeper with Scylla? AFAIK LWTs are not yet available in Scylla

IMO, the real benefit of biometric identification against passwords is that nobody can spy you while you are unlocking your phone.

Never trust an article that tells you to paste something somewhere (specially a console)

Anemic objects and whether they are harmful or harmless has been debated in software engineering for long.

I find over-relying on encapsulation more harmful than useful nowadays specially if you are going to write scalable software that are inherently distributed. For example, hiding accessing a database behind a simple getter function makes another programmer ignore performance implication and other issues that may arise.