[JBoss JIRA] Created: (ISPN-106) JdbcXXXCacheStore should honor cacheName
by Klaus Friedel (JIRA)
JdbcXXXCacheStore should honor cacheName
----------------------------------------
Key: ISPN-106
URL: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/ISPN-106
Project: Infinispan
Issue Type: Feature Request
Components: Loaders and Stores
Affects Versions: 4.0.0.ALPHA5
Reporter: Klaus Friedel
Assignee: Manik Surtani
Creating multiple caches from a CacheManager configured with a JdbcXXXCacheStore results in unpredicted behaviour:
After creating a CacheManger that persists its entries with a JdbcXXXCacheStore one will see strange behaviour like this:
Cache fooCache = cacheManager.getCache("foo");
Cache barCache = cacheManager.getCache("bar");
// single put:
fooCache.put(42, "Hello World");
After restart :
fooCache.contains(42); // true
barCache.contains(42); // true !!!!
To circumvent this behaviour the only solution is to create one CacheStore per Cache. So one migth end up using a lot of different CacheManagers.
The best solution IMHO would be to add sopport for a "cacheName" column to "TableManipulation". So different caches could share the same table.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
15 years, 4 months
[JBoss JIRA] Updated: (ISPN-61) Tx optimisations
by Manik Surtani (JIRA)
[ https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/ISPN-61?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Manik Surtani updated ISPN-61:
------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 4.1.0.GA
> Tx optimisations
> ----------------
>
> Key: ISPN-61
> URL: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/ISPN-61
> Project: Infinispan
> Issue Type: Feature Request
> Affects Versions: 4.0.0.ALPHA4
> Reporter: Mircea Markus
> Assignee: Mircea Markus
> Fix For: 4.1.0.BETA1, 4.1.0.GA
>
>
> Following 2 optimizations might be implemented with respect to transactions.
> 1) From an email on infinispan-dev (horizon-dev actually):
> if there are only two members int the cluster always use an 1PC. If the 1st phase fails remotely, then also rollback locally. This would reduce one network roundtrip.
> While this is an interesting thought, it does raise the potential for race conditions - since this decision will have to be taken in the TxInterceptor in the beforeCompletion phase of a transaction, and by the time the call gets to the interceptor for replication, the topology may have changed such that you need to replicate to 2 instead of 1 other peer. Which would mean a 2PC again. So it does need some thought.
> 2) when asked to prepare, a participant might return a value indicating that no changes were made (read-only participant), so this one won't need an commit message, so less roundtrip.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
15 years, 4 months
[JBoss JIRA] Updated: (ISPN-61) Tx optimisations
by Mircea Markus (JIRA)
[ https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/ISPN-61?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Mircea Markus updated ISPN-61:
------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 4.1.0.BETA1
(was: 4.0.0.BETA1)
(was: 4.0.0.GA)
> Tx optimisations
> ----------------
>
> Key: ISPN-61
> URL: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/ISPN-61
> Project: Infinispan
> Issue Type: Feature Request
> Affects Versions: 4.0.0.ALPHA4
> Reporter: Mircea Markus
> Assignee: Mircea Markus
> Fix For: 4.1.0.BETA1
>
>
> Following 2 optimizations might be implemented with respect to transactions.
> 1) From an email on infinispan-dev (horizon-dev actually):
> if there are only two members int the cluster always use an 1PC. If the 1st phase fails remotely, then also rollback locally. This would reduce one network roundtrip.
> While this is an interesting thought, it does raise the potential for race conditions - since this decision will have to be taken in the TxInterceptor in the beforeCompletion phase of a transaction, and by the time the call gets to the interceptor for replication, the topology may have changed such that you need to replicate to 2 instead of 1 other peer. Which would mean a 2PC again. So it does need some thought.
> 2) when asked to prepare, a participant might return a value indicating that no changes were made (read-only participant), so this one won't need an commit message, so less roundtrip.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
15 years, 4 months