Don't transactional caches require a JTA cache manager being present, configured and running? On 28 Sep 2011, at 17:10, Mircea Markus wrote: > Hi, > > ATM the default cache transaction model in 5.1 is transactional. The main reason transactional cache was chosen by default was backward compatibility: existing code that access the cache in a mixed way (i.e. both transactional and non transactional) would fail if the default mode is non transactional. By fail I don't mean a runtime exception being thrown, but the the operations in transaction's scope being executed individually and the transaction ignored. > > As Galder highlighted, the problem with being transactional by default is that you pay a penalti if you take Infinispan and run out of the box as a simple local cache for example. In theory, in only makes sense to enable transactional behaivour if you want transactions. [1] > > Shall we switch to non-tx caches by default? Or implement ISPN-61 in 5.1, measure performance and if perf is ok stick with transactional cache? [2] Opinions? > > Cheers, > Mircea > > > [1] > a). The performance for a get should be the same for a tx and non tx cache. > b) Put's performance is better now: 1RPC for non-tx and 2 RPC for tx. However this will change once https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-61. With ISPN-61 implemented, I expect the performance of both tx and non-tx caches to be roughly the same. > > [2] Implementing first optimisation described in ISPN-61 is rather trivial right now. > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev -- Manik Surtani manik(a)jboss.org twitter.com/maniksurtani Lead, Infinispan http://www.infinispan.org _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

I would say non-TX by default.

Galder came with this nice idea to mark a cache as transactional when a TMLookup is configured. This would solve the backward compatibility problem, as people that use the cache in a transactional way must set the TML. So we'll stick with non-TX by default. Cheers, Mircea On 28 Sep 2011, at 20:05, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > On 28 September 2011 19:08, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> I would say non-TX by default. > > +1, as it's the current default. > > I see many advantages in using TX instead, but if we change that I'd > expect that to happen in a mayor release. > > Sanne > _______________________________________________ > 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