Hi Wayne,
I see that you have raised your query in the Infinispan forum [1], which is the correct
place for these kinds of queries, not this mailing list. This mailing list is for
technical discussions regarding the development of Infinispan. Furthermore, in the future
please try to avoid hijacking existing threads on mailing lists if they are not directly
related to your issue/query.
[1]
Hi Ryan,
I understand that infinispan can be used by many platforms/applications. In
addition, I was not able to find more information as to how infinispan cache
manager actually work.
What I described is the infinispan embedded in wildfly 10.1.10.Final. This
observation happened in a cluster of two wildfly 10.1.0.Final instances
Basically, the console output of the wildfly instance that actually made the
modification of an object printed out update statement (expected). Later on,
if a user revisit the same object (hotel), the console will not print out
any query statement. This is expected since the latest data was cached.
For the other wildfly instance(cluster member), if a user visit the same
object (hotel) first time, a query to select for a specific object(hotel)
was printed out. This is expected since the cache should be invalidated and
query needs to be executed to retrieve latest data. However, when the user
repeatedly revisit the same object (hotel), the query got printed out again.
This will happen until a period of time (may be expiration setting).
This observation indicated that the wildfly instance which actually made the
modification was able retrieve the latest data and cache it again. But the
wildfly instance that receives the signal (to invalidate cache) indeed
invalidated the cache, however, it did just that without cache the latest
data.
Is this behavior the intended design or some other configuration I need to
make to ensure the other cluster members can also cache the latest data?
Thanks,
Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: infinispan-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:infinispan-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Emerson
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 5:20 AM
To: infinispan -Dev List
Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] Conflict Manager and Partition Handling Blog
> 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.
Cheers
Ryan
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev