Guys,
<div><br></div><div>Sorry if this is not a &quot;pure&quot; dev question... but I guess the devs now better how to answer this. If nobody wants to answer, no problem! :)</div><div><br></div><div>I writing about CAP and I will talk about how Infinispan deal with it. But, I&#39;m getting a little confused about this:</div>

<div><a href="https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/ISPN/Consistency,+Availability+and+Partition-tolerance+(CAP)+Theorem">https://docs.jboss.org/author/display/ISPN/Consistency,+Availability+and+Partition-tolerance+(CAP)+Theorem</a></div>

<div><br></div><div>Reading the new Brewer article on infoQ (<a href="http://www.infoq.com/articles/cap-twelve-years-later-how-the-rules-have-changed">http://www.infoq.com/articles/cap-twelve-years-later-how-the-rules-have-changed</a>), is my understand that the application can choose between A and C. Partition will occur always, and it&#39;s not up to the application to decide this. Even in a network without communication failures, when we writing in a node, if someone write in another node &quot;almost&quot; at the same time, the system will let</div>

<div>the two writes happen besides the latency (partition) between the two nodes.</div><div><br></div><div>So, what is making me confuse is:</div><div><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,FreeSans,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:18px;text-align:left">&quot;Infinispan has traditionally been biased towards Consistency and Availability, sacrificing Partition-tolerance</span>&quot;</div>

<div><br></div><div>I know about the async options of Infinispan. So, for me, the users can decide at a certain degree of consistency x availability. But, how Infinispan can sacrifice partition-tolerance?</div><div><br></div>

<div><br></div><div>cheers!</div><div><br></div><div>Israel</div>