Re: [infinispan-dev] FineGrainedAtomicMap preview

On 5 Oct 2011, at 22:58, Vladimir Blagojevic wrote: Why do we want to distinguish them? Is the FGAM significantly less performant than AtomicMap? Otherwise why not just make all the maps atomic.

And there's an bug with the current non-fine grained atomic maps maps: no WL is acquired when you write to such a map anymore. And it should be, here's the UT. https://gist.github.com/1267310

In order to understand the issue I needed to look into the entire code. Here are some observations: - you shouldn't register a sync for applying the atomic map changes. Why? There are several reasons for that, the main one being that with this approach FGAM would't be able to participate in distributed transactions. I don't see where the FGAM's entries that are added within a transaction's scope are merged within the existing entries in the FGAM. What do code does is keep all transaction-scoped entries in the data container's FGAM instance, even if they are not committed. This test fails and it obviously shouldn't: https://gist.github.com/1267303

I think before moving forward with the review you'd need to change the code to keep modifications in the transaction's scope and only apply them during commit.

Your test fails because on remote put you basically override the map that exist on a node with the map that is obtained from the remote node.