Re: [infinispan-dev] Ditching ASYNC modes for REPL/DIST/INV/CacheStores?
At the JGroups level, ASYNC generates *less* traffic than SYNC. So if
you do sync under the cover and use a future to make it async at the API
level, you're incurring more overhead, namely the messages sending back
the responses.
Not sure about the Infinispan async API, but I'd assume this would also
use more threads.
On 31/01/14 08:08, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
Hi all,
The following came to my mind yesterday: I think we should ditch
ASYNC modes for DIST/REPL/INV and our async cache store
functionality.
Instead, whoever wants to store something asyncronously should use
asynchronous methods, i.e. call putAsync. So, this would mean that
when you call put(), it's always sync. This would reduce the
complexity and configuration of our code base, without affecting our
functionality, and it would make things more logical IMO.
WDYT?
Cheers, -- Galder Zamarreño galder(a)redhat.com twitter.com/galderz
Project Lead, Escalante http://escalante.io
Engineer, Infinispan http://infinispan.org
_______________________________________________ infinispan-dev
mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Bela Ban, JGroups lead (http://www.jgroups.org)