On 25 Jul 2017, at 16:54, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Hey Ryan, Very detailed blog post! Great work on both the post and the feature! :D While reading, the following question came to my mind: how does Infinispan determine there's a conflict? Does it rely on .equals() based equality? A follow up would be: whether in the future this could be pluggable, e.g. when comparing a version field is enough to realise there's a conflict. As opposed of relying in .equals(), if that's what's being used inside :) Cheers, -- Galder Zamarreño Infinispan, Red Hat > On 17 Jul 2017, at 14:16, Ryan Emerson <remerson(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > Here's a blog post on the introduction of ConflictManager and the recent changes to partition handling. > > http://blog.infinispan.org/2017/07/conflict-management-and-partition.html > > Cheers > Ryan > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

Oh, if we can't find a simple tutorial for it, there's always https://github.com/infinispan-demos :) -- Galder Zamarreño Infinispan, Red Hat > On 25 Jul 2017, at 17:11, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > One more thing: have you thought how we could have a simple tutorial on > this feature? > > It'd be great to find a simple, reduced, example to show it off :) > > Cheers, > -- > Galder Zamarreño > Infinispan, Red Hat > >> On 25 Jul 2017, at 16:54, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Hey Ryan, >> >> Very detailed blog post! Great work on both the post and the feature! :D >> >> While reading, the following question came to my mind: how does Infinispan >> determine there's a conflict? Does it rely on .equals() based equality? >> >> A follow up would be: whether in the future this could be pluggable, e.g. >> when comparing a version field is enough to realise there's a conflict. >> As opposed of relying in .equals(), if that's what's being used inside :) >> >> Cheers, >> -- >> Galder Zamarreño >> Infinispan, Red Hat >> >>> On 17 Jul 2017, at 14:16, Ryan Emerson <remerson(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> Hi Everyone, >>> >>> Here's a blog post on the introduction of ConflictManager and the recent >>> changes to partition handling. >>> >>> http://blog.infinispan.org/2017/07/conflict-management-and-partition.html >>> >>> Cheers >>> Ryan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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

The option `REMOVE_ALL` seems sensible for the disposable Cache use case. One question though: if one partition has a defined value for a key, while the other partition has no value (null) for this same key, is it considered a conflict? I think you need to clarify if a "null" in a subset of partitions causes the conflict merge to be triggered or not. I think it should: for example having the cache use case in mind, an explicit invalidation needs to be propagated safely.

On 1 August 2017 at 12:19, Ryan Emerson <remerson(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> The option `REMOVE_ALL` seems sensible for the disposable Cache use >> case. One question though: if one partition has a defined value for a >> key, while the other partition has no value (null) for this same key, >> is it considered a conflict? >> I think you need to clarify if a "null" in a subset of partitions >> causes the conflict merge to be triggered or not. I think it should: >> for example having the cache use case in mind, an explicit >> invalidation needs to be propagated safely. > > Yes a combination of null/non-null entries is detected as a conflict. So in > the use-case you describe, utilising the REMOVE_ALL strategy would result > in the cache entry being removed from the cache on merge. Thanks, looks great. Would you mind clarifying the docs about this? Sanne > > Cheers > Ryan > _______________________________________________ > 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

Hi Ryan, I understand that infinispan can be used by many platforms/applications. In addition, I was not able to find more information as to how infinispan cache manager actually work. What I described is the infinispan embedded in wildfly 10.1.10.Final. This observation happened in a cluster of two wildfly 10.1.0.Final instances Basically, the console output of the wildfly instance that actually made the modification of an object printed out update statement (expected). Later on, if a user revisit the same object (hotel), the console will not print out any query statement. This is expected since the latest data was cached. For the other wildfly instance(cluster member), if a user visit the same object (hotel) first time, a query to select for a specific object(hotel) was printed out. This is expected since the cache should be invalidated and query needs to be executed to retrieve latest data. However, when the user repeatedly revisit the same object (hotel), the query got printed out again. This will happen until a period of time (may be expiration setting). This observation indicated that the wildfly instance which actually made the modification was able retrieve the latest data and cache it again. But the wildfly instance that receives the signal (to invalidate cache) indeed invalidated the cache, however, it did just that without cache the latest data. Is this behavior the intended design or some other configuration I need to make to ensure the other cluster members can also cache the latest data? Thanks, Wayne -----Original Message----- From: infinispan-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:infinispan-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Emerson Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 5:20 AM To: infinispan -Dev List Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] Conflict Manager and Partition Handling Blog > The option `REMOVE_ALL` seems sensible for the disposable Cache use > case. One question though: if one partition has a defined value for a > key, while the other partition has no value (null) for this same key, > is it considered a conflict? > I think you need to clarify if a "null" in a subset of partitions > causes the conflict merge to be triggered or not. I think it should: > for example having the cache use case in mind, an explicit > invalidation needs to be propagated safely. Yes a combination of null/non-null entries is detected as a conflict. So in the use-case you describe, utilising the REMOVE_ALL strategy would result in the cache entry being removed from the cache on merge. Cheers Ryan _______________________________________________ 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