On 1 August 2017 at 12:19, Ryan Emerson <remerson(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> The option `REMOVE_ALL` seems sensible for the disposable Cache
use
> case. One question though: if one partition has a defined value for a
> key, while the other partition has no value (null) for this same key,
> is it considered a conflict?
> I think you need to clarify if a "null" in a subset of partitions
> causes the conflict merge to be triggered or not. I think it should:
> for example having the cache use case in mind, an explicit
> invalidation needs to be propagated safely.
Yes a combination of null/non-null entries is detected as a conflict. So in the use-case
you describe, utilising the REMOVE_ALL strategy would result in the cache entry being
removed from the cache on merge.
Thanks, looks great. Would you mind clarifying the docs about this?
Sanne
Cheers
Ryan
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev