[infinispan-dev] rethinking ISPN transactions

[Dan Berindei]

Is there any reason to use synchronization other than "it's faster"?

IMO, the reasoning for removing synchronizations is the same as item 1 in
your proposal, "Async options for commit/rollback".


On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Mircea Markus <mmarkus at redhat.com> wrote:

>
> On Nov 19, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe synchronization support is another thing that we should scrap in
> 7.0, then?
>
> I'd still allow them (sync enlistment is there for a resaon), but have
> XA+recovery enabled by default and the batching commit should fail if the
> tx hasn't completed successfully.
>
> >
> > BTW, I've also seen the transaction timeout that Radim mentioned, but
> only recently. I wonder if we could do anything to increase it for the
> stress tests.
> >
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Mircea Markus
> Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/infinispan-dev/attachments/20131119/7855ed5f/attachment.html