Re: Helping out with JBCACHE-991 (Non-tx batching)
by Manik Surtani
On 1 Aug 2007, at 23:00, Vincent Marquez wrote:
> >I'd have thought batching would hold locks as well.
> >
> >Unless you see batching as just queueing calls and applying them when
> >batchComplete() (or whatever we call it) is invoked. But then how do
> >you deal with failures? Is the batch atomic?
>
> Well, I was assuming they wouldn't hold locks (at least until the
> commit occured). I figured
> a batch might be long running with adds, and with the current
> locking scheme, other reads would block
> until the commit for the nodes that were added/updated, no?
Yes, that's correct, unless you use optimistic locking.
>
> You could have the commit be optimistic with atomic behavior, or
> non atomic and just have exception notifications. Are either of
> these options?
At the moment optimistic locking is atomic, so even if there is a
version mismatch for one operation, the entire transaction (i.e.,
batch) will fail.
Just like with databases, I'm assuming batch operations would only be
write operations and not read operations?
--
Manik Surtani
Lead, JBoss Cache
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
17 years, 5 months