[infinispan-dev] Keeping track of locked nodes

[Sanne Grinovero]

On 20 January 2012 12:41, Mircea Markus <mircea.markus at jboss.com> wrote:
>>>> Cool.  Mircea, reckon we can patch this quickly and with low risk?  Or is it high risk at this stage?
>>> I don't think it's a good moment for this right now. I'm not even convinced that this is the way go, as it might be cheaper to cache this information than to calculate it when needed.
>>
>> Just to clarify, I wasn't reporting a contention point or a
>> performance issue. I was just puzzled by the design as it's very
>> different than what I was expecting. I think we should move towards a
>> design for which we don't really consider the locks to be positioned
>> on a specific node, they should be free to move around (still
>> deterministically, I mean on rehash).
>> Not asking for urgent changes!
> +1, you've been quite convincing about this in Lisbon :-)
> However ATM the lock failover is mainly managed by the transaction originator and is not migrated across during topology changes.

So if locks are failed-over, is your transaction originator able to
find the new owner to unlock it? That's the core of my question on
keeping the Address.. not performance related.