[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-5669) JPAProtobufFilterIndexingServiceProvider is ignored
by Adrian Nistor (JIRA)
Adrian Nistor created ISPN-5669:
-----------------------------------
Summary: JPAProtobufFilterIndexingServiceProvider is ignored
Key: ISPN-5669
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-5669
Project: Infinispan
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Remote Querying
Affects Versions: 8.0.0.Beta3
Reporter: Adrian Nistor
Fix For: 8.0.0.CR1
The processor of the @MetaInfServices annotation detects the class JPAFilterIndexingServiceProvider as the implemented contract instead of the intended FilterIndexingServiceProvider interface. This can be easily overridden manually.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
10 years, 8 months
[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-5607) NearCache: it is possible to read stale data with a put/remove followed by a get
by Galder Zamarreño (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-5607?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Work on ISPN-5607 started by Galder Zamarreño.
----------------------------------------------
> NearCache: it is possible to read stale data with a put/remove followed by a get
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ISPN-5607
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-5607
> Project: Infinispan
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core
> Affects Versions: 7.2.3.Final
> Environment: one hotrod client with 2 hotrod servers
> Reporter: Enrico Olivelli
> Assignee: Galder Zamarreño
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 8.0.0.Final, 7.2.5.Final
>
>
> Writes to the NearCache do not invalidate/update local data on put/remove operations, and so the NearCache (LAZY MODE) is invalidated using an eventlistener in an asynch way.
> It is possible for a client to write a value and issue a get on the same key, and the result of the get would not be the latest value but the one which was present before the update operation.
> This happens frequently when there is very much traffic on the connection of the listener which receives the events for the NearCache.
> It would be better at least to invalidate locally every entry modified from the client itself
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
10 years, 8 months
[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-5600) Optimize transactions on multiple caches
by Radim Vansa (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-5600?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Radim Vansa updated ISPN-5600:
------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 9.0.0.Final
> Optimize transactions on multiple caches
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: ISPN-5600
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-5600
> Project: Infinispan
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Components: Transactions
> Affects Versions: 8.0.0.Alpha2
> Reporter: Radim Vansa
> Fix For: 9.0.0.Final
>
>
> NON_XA transactions that span multiple caches are registered as multiple synchronizations, and these synchronizations are often processed sequentially ^1^; therefore, we send synchronous PrepareCommand for each cache and then CommitCommand for each cache as well, delaying the commit by these round-trips.
> Since the targets for different caches may differ, we still need to send the RPCs separately, but in parallel. Therefore, there should be one uber-synchronization for all caches that use NON_XA mode (and maybe something similar with XA). I believe that using single synchronization could save some allocations, too.
> ^1^ Not sure if full-fledged JTA implementations do that; JTA spec does not say anything about the order of synchronizations and whether these should be processed in parallel.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
10 years, 8 months