On 1 Aug 2011, at 17:36, Sanne Grinovero wrote:

Hi Mircea,
what you propose has a strong impact on existing use cases.

Not having batching kills the Lucene performance, and using
transactions is not an option unless the whole state of the index can
fit in memory, which is not the use case we're targeting: I need to be
able to use both on the same Cache.

So you access the cache in two ways:

- through batching api and

- directly, outside the scope of a transaction

Am I correct?

Isn't it possible to have a batching implementation which doesn't rely
on transactions, or why are you needing to add this limitation?

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.

I'd like to get a better grasp of your use case and let's catch up from there. IRC?

[1] http://www.cis.upenn.edu/acg/papers/cal06_atomic_semantics.pdf