On 21 Apr 2011, at 12:38, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
So behaviour is different depending on who happens to be the owner
of
the key I'm working on?
In that case I'd propose that the local operations should behave as
the remote, that would provide some consistency in behaviour - it's
totally nice the implementation optimizes where it can, but this
shouldn't leak out on different effects? Advertising Infinispan as
MVCC I wouldn't expect it to acquire eager locks without explicitly
asking for it.
MVCC really just allows for concurrent readers and one writer locally. We don't do
multi-write MVCC, since there is little point - one of the writers will inevitably fail
since you can't deterministically merge multiple writes on a K/V store. And letting
the "last one" overwrite the rest is hard as well, since it depends on how you
determine which update was the "last". :-)
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
twitter.com/maniksurtani
Lead, Infinispan
http://www.infinispan.org