>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?

You could have the commit be optimistic with atomic behavior, or non atomic and just have exception notifications. Are either of these options?