[infinispan-dev] Asynchronous cache's "void put()" call expectations changed from 6.0.0 to 6.0.1/7.0

Galder Zamarreño galder at redhat.com
Mon Sep 1 11:08:45 EDT 2014

Hi all,

@Paul, this might be important for WF if using async repl caches (the same I think applies to distributed async caches too)

Today I’ve been trying to upgrade Infinispan version in Hibernate master from 6.0.0.Final to 7.0.0.Beta1. Overall, it’s all worked fine but there’s one test that has started failing.

Essentialy, this is a clustered test for a repl async cache (w/ cluster cache loader) where a non-owner cache node does put() and immediately, on the same cache, it calls a get(). The test is failing because the get() does not see the effects of the put(), even if both operations are called on the same cache instance.

According to Dan, this should have been happening since [1] was implemented, but it’s really started happening since [2] when lock delegation was enabled for replicated caches (EntryWrappingInterceptor.isUsingLockDelegation is now true whereas in 6.0.0 it was false).

Not sure we set expectations in this regard, but clearly it’s big change in terms of expectations on when “void put()” completes for async repl caches. I’m not sure how we should handle this, but it definitely needs some discussion and adjuts documentation/javadoc if needed. Can we do something differently?

Indepent of how we resolve this, this is the result of once again of trying to shoehole async behaviour into sync APIs. Any async caches (DIST, INV, REPL) should really be accessed exclusively via the AsyncCache API, where you can return quickly and use the future, and any listener to attach to it (a bit ala Java8’s CompletableFuture.map lambda calls) as a way to signal that the operation has completed, and then you have an API and cache mode that make sense and is consistent with how async APIs work.

Right now, when a repl async cache’s “void put()” call is not very well defined. Does it return when message has been put on the network? What impact does it have in the local cache contents? 

Also, a very big problem of the change of behaviour is that if left like that, you are forcing users to code differently, using the same “void put()” API depending on the configuration (whether async/sync). As clearly shown by the issue above, this is very confusing. It’s a lot more logical IMO, and I’ve already sent an email on this very same topic [3] back in January, that whether a cache is sync or async should be based purely on the API used and forget about the static configuration flag on whether the cache is async or sync.


[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2772
[2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3354
[3] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/infinispan-dev/2014-January/014448.html
Galder Zamarreño
galder at redhat.com

More information about the infinispan-dev mailing list