2009/5/22 Yuval Kogman <nothingm...@woobling.org>: > From what I know this assumption is wrong. Eventual consistency still > needs atomic primitives, it's not about whether or not you have > transactions, it's about what data they affect (eventual consistency > involves breaking them down).
Found this link in the archive as well: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1394128 I think it explains why better than I do.
