On 22 Jan 2014 16:10, "Pedro Ruivo" <pedro(a)infinispan.org> wrote:
On 01/22/2014 01:58 PM, Dan Berindei wrote:
>
>
> It would also require us to keep a Set<K> for each group, with the keys
> associated with that group. As such, I'm not sure it would be a lot
> easier to implement (correctly) than FineGrainedAtomicMap.
>
>
Dan, I didn't understand why do we need to keep a Set<K>. Can you
elaborate?
We'd need some way to keep track of the keys that are part of the group,
iterating over the entire cache for every getGroup() call would be way too
slow.