Time/Place

• Wednesday, Sept 18, 2019
• Time: 12:00pm Eastern Daylight Time US (UTC-4)
• Audio/Video Conference Link: https://lyrasis.zoom.us/my/fedora
  
  • Dial-in: 
    +1 408 638 0968
    +1 646 876 9923
    +1 669 900 6833
    Meeting ID:
    812 835 3771

• Join fedora-project.slack.com on the "sprints" channel

Attendees and availability:

1. Danny Bernstein 
2. Ben Pennell 
3. Peter Eichman  
4. Mohamed Mohideen Abdul Rasheed 
5. Jared Whiklo
6. Peter Winckles
7. Andrew Woods
8. Aaron Birkland

Agenda

Discuss and validate the following diagrams:

• Transaction Aware Persistent Storage Layer (diagram)
• Flow Diagram Adding Binary to Existing AG
• Other docs: 
  
  • Transaction Aware Persistence Layer with tx header 

  • Transaction Aware DB/FS Persistence Layer 

  • Other use cases

Questions:

1. Do we see any weaknesses in the design?
2. Is the current state of the java ocfl client sufficient to implement the design as it is? 
3. Any significant performance issues anticipated? 
   1. Mitigation strategies?
4. How do we handle versioning within a transaction? 
   1. We do not allow it (405)
   2. We allow it but reject subsequent requests  - ie the version creation request must be the last within a transaction
   3. Other possibilities ?

Notes

1. Current OCFL client does copy and not move.  Move is riskier.
   1. mv will perform better
   2. Peter Winckles  can add a mv option, but it must be recognized that there is some risk.
2. Checksumming: currently 2 checksumming operations are required by the client - a checksum could be provided to reduce that to 1  checksum calc.
   1. Peter Winckles  can add support for providing a checksum upfront.
3. We might consider making transaction committal (optionally)