Hi, Thinking some more about batching API(thanks galder!) I think its main benefit it brings is allowing users to use transactions without having to set up/download an TransactionManager.

Very similar to what Brian was describing here: http://community.jboss.org/wiki/BatchModeTransactionManager "This is all great, but there are uses cases where it's nice to have many of these benefits without the involvement of a JTA Transaction" I think we should allow people a similar approach, having our own BatchModeTransactionManagerLookup and BatchModeTransactionManager. Again, this is something to be used when users don't need distributed transactions, and don't want to get their hands dirty with setting up a TM.

Instead of BatchModeTransactionManager we can use Britronix JTA[1] as it is a "a simple but complete implementation of the JTA 1.1 API". Drools is using that and they are happy with it. Actually what about replacing our DummyTM with this one? Less code to maintain and our tests would be run with a more-close-to-spec TM.

Wdyt? Cheers [1] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/BTM/Home _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

On 13 Sep 2010, at 18:03, Manik Surtani wrote: On 13 Sep 2010, at 17:00, Mircea Markus wrote: Hi, Thinking some more about batching API(thanks galder!) I think its main benefit it brings is allowing users to use transactions without having to set up/download an TransactionManager. Nope.  The main benefit is atomic grouping of tasks.  This is less than full blown JTA (no coordination between multiple data sources). Nope :) For grouping of task, batching starts a JTA tx under the hood. The behaviour is the same, API is different. Very similar to what Brian was describing here: http://community.jboss.org/wiki/BatchModeTransactionManager "This is all great, but there are uses cases where it's nice to have many of these benefits without the involvement of a JTA Transaction" I think we should allow people a similar approach, having our own BatchModeTransactionManagerLookup and BatchModeTransactionManager. Again, this is something to be used when users don't need distributed transactions, and don't want to get their hands dirty with setting up a TM. Not sure I understand this statement - what is it that you want to do here?  And why? I got now. I thought that, besides specifying setInvocationBatchingEnabled one also needs to specify a TM for batch support. I was wrong, the confusion in this email. Hope I'll make up by updating the documents correctly :) Instead of BatchModeTransactionManager we can use Britronix JTA[1] as it is a "a simple but complete implementation of the JTA 1.1 API". Drools is using that and they are happy with it. Actually what about replacing our DummyTM with this one? Less code to maintain and our tests would be run with a more-close-to-spec TM. It's another dep that we really don't need.  If people want to use BTM they can always do so without a problem. The DummyTM is a couple of classes and very few LOC that hasn't changed in a long while.  What maintenance?  :-) Wdyt? Cheers [1] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/BTM/Home _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev -- Manik Surtani manik(a)jboss.org Lead, Infinispan Lead, JBoss Cache http://www.infinispan.org http://www.jbosscache.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

On 13 Sep 2010, at 19:26, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > An important feature I'm missing when using batches but not using a > transaction manager is the capability to eagerly lock keys, because > there's no unlock. This applies to regular JTA transactions as well as batching, correct?

On Sep 13, 2010, at 11:06 PM, Manik Surtani wrote: > > On 13 Sep 2010, at 19:26, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > >> An important feature I'm missing when using batches but not using a >> transaction manager is the capability to eagerly lock keys, because >> there's no unlock. > > This applies to regular JTA transactions as well as batching, correct? As a side note, this goes back, slightly, to my original question on batching. Does batching (without a TM) make sense with eager locking?

With JTA, we know locks are released at commit time thanks to multi node coordination. However, does multi node coordination happen when batching without TM is used? If not, eager locking does not make sense with batching. > > -- > Manik Surtani > manik(a)jboss.org > Lead, Infinispan > Lead, JBoss Cache > http://www.infinispan.org > http://www.jbosscache.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev -- Galder Zamarreño Sr. Software Engineer Infinispan, JBoss Cache _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

On 13 Sep 2010, at 18:03, Manik Surtani wrote: > > On 13 Sep 2010, at 17:00, Mircea Markus wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Thinking some more about batching API(thanks galder!) I think its main benefit it brings is allowing users to use transactions without having to set up/download an TransactionManager. > > Nope. The main benefit is atomic grouping of tasks. This is less than full blown JTA (no coordination between multiple data sources). Nope :) For grouping of task, batching starts a JTA tx under the hood. The behaviour is the same, API is different.

> >> Very similar to what Brian was describing here: http://community.jboss.org/wiki/BatchModeTransactionManager >> "This is all great, but there are uses cases where it's nice to have many of these benefits without the involvement of a JTA Transaction" >> >> I think we should allow people a similar approach, having our own BatchModeTransactionManagerLookup and BatchModeTransactionManager. >> Again, this is something to be used when users don't need distributed transactions, and don't want to get their hands dirty with setting up a TM. > > Not sure I understand this statement - what is it that you want to do here? And why? I got now. I thought that, besides specifying setInvocationBatchingEnabled one also needs to specify a TM for batch support. I was wrong, the confusion in this email. Hope I'll make up by updating the documents correctly :)

> >> >> Instead of BatchModeTransactionManager we can use Britronix JTA[1] as it is a "a simple but complete implementation of the JTA 1.1 API". Drools is using that and they are happy with it. Actually what about replacing our DummyTM with this one? Less code to maintain and our tests would be run with a more-close-to-spec TM. > > It's another dep that we really don't need. If people want to use BTM they can always do so without a problem. > > The DummyTM is a couple of classes and very few LOC that hasn't changed in a long while. What maintenance? :-) > >> >> Wdyt? >> Cheers >> >> [1] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/BTM/Home >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > -- > Manik Surtani > manik(a)jboss.org > Lead, Infinispan > Lead, JBoss Cache > http://www.infinispan.org > http://www.jbosscache.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