Couldn't this be handled higher up in our implementatoin then ?
If I enable an async mode, all puts / gets become putAsync/getAsync
transparently to both the application and to the state transfer.
Tristan
On 01/31/2014 08:32 AM, Dennis Reed wrote:
It would be a loss of functionality.
As a common example, the AS web session replication cache is configured
for ASYNC by default, for performance reasons.
But it can be changed to SYNC to guarantee that when the request
finishes that the session was replicated.
That wouldn't be possible if you could no longer switch between
ASYNC/SYNC with just a configuration change.
-Dennis
On 01/31/2014 01:08 AM, Galder ZamarreƱo 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 ZamarreƱo
> 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
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev