[infinispan-dev] rethinking ISPN transactions

[Mircea Markus]

On Nov 19, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei at gmail.com> wrote:

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

I guess the reason for using synchronization is to invalidate (or updated) an cache. We obviously don't do that ATM, so indeed wondering if there's any point at all...
Pedro any idea? 

> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

Cheers,
-- 
Mircea Markus
Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org)