> > I'd solve this differently. Saves are always performed on one partition, > > even if some of the change set actually goes beyond a given partition. > > this is however assuming that our implementation supports dynamic > > partitioning and redistribution (e.g. when a new cluster node is added > > to the federation). in this case the excessive part of the change set > > would eventually be migrated to the correct cluster node. > > > > This is a very attractive approach I think. There are still too many > open questions regarding cluster topology, distribution and scale ATM > but we should definitely keep this in mind!
btw, one of the drawback of this approach is, that it is not trival anymore where the borders of the partitions are. regards marcel
