<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 1 Aug 2011, at 17:36, Sanne Grinovero wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi Mircea,<br>what you propose has a strong impact on existing use cases.<br><br>Not having batching kills the Lucene performance, and using<br>transactions is not an option unless the whole state of the index can<br>fit in memory, which is not the use case we're targeting: I need to be<br>able to use both on the same Cache.<br></div></blockquote>So you access the cache in two ways:</div><div>- through batching api and</div><div>- directly, outside the scope of a transaction</div><div>Am I correct?<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>Isn't it possible to have a batching implementation which doesn't rely<br>on transactions, or why are you needing to add this limitation?</div></blockquote>Supporting a mixed way of accessing the cache might cause problems [1] (thanks to Paolo R. for this paper) and is also not consistent with the JSR 107's way of doing things, which doesn't go for mixed cache.</div><div>I'd like to get a better grasp of your use case and let's catch up from there. IRC?</div><div>[1] <a href="http://www.cis.upenn.edu/acg/papers/cal06_atomic_semantics.pdf">http://www.cis.upenn.edu/acg/papers/cal06_atomic_semantics.pdf</a><br></div><br></body></html>