On May 15, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Diego Didona wrote: > Hello again, > I need this behaviour because I have a piece of software which > relies on the knowledge of ISPN's locking scheme and it is *explicitly* > tailored for the locking scheme of ISPN 5.0;
^ This is still very cryptic, can you be more explicit? > now I have to move to ISPN > 5.2 so I just wanted to know if there is any chance of having my > previous software working with 5.2. The issues with the previous 5.0 locking mechanism have been clearly documented under the hybrid approach in: https://community.jboss.org/docs/DOC-16973 You have not yet given me a single reason why we should put back something that's flawed. All you've said is: i rely on X and I want it back. If you can explain what exactly you're relying on and for what specific reasons, we might be able to help you further. Thanks > Thanks. > > Regards, > Diego >> On May 14, 2012, at 5:53 PM, Diego Didona wrote: >> >>> Thanks Galder, >>> I am reading again the documentation you linked and I am also running >>> some simple tests but I see this behaviour: >>> - with OPTIMISTIC mode the lock is acquired *only* at prepare time >>> (thus *not* like in ISPN 5.0); >>> - with PESSIMISTIC mode the lock is acquired at encounter time on the >>> primary node (again, thus *not* like in ISPN 5.0). >>> >>> The behaviour I'm looking for is only-local encounter-time >>> locking + cluster-wide prepare-time locking. >> I can see what you mean by differences now, but why do you need this >> behaivour? >> >> What is your use case? IOW, what is the problem that you're having that >> requires you to get local locks first? >> >>> Am I missing something? >>> Thanks again. Regards, >>> Diego >>>> That's already possible, seehttps://docs.jboss.org/author/x/FAY5 >>>> >>>> Btw, the community wikis, like the one pointed below, are now used as >>>> design documents. For the user guide, head >>>> tohttps://docs.jboss.org/author/display/ISPN. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> On May 4, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Diego Didona wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> looking at the code of ISPN 5.2 (and 5.1) I have seen that the >>>>> LockingIntercetor has been replaced with new ones. I would like to know >>>>> if there is the possibility to have ISPN 5.2 (or 5.1) working with the >>>>> *same* hybrid locking scheme described in [1], which was the default >>>>> till ISPN 5.0 and entailed the encounter-time write-locks acquisition >>>>> during the "local" execution of a transaction and then their remote >>>>> acquisition on other nodes at prepare time. >>>>> Of course I would like to know if this is feasible just by tweaking some >>>>> configuration parameters, without having to modify the source code. >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Diego >>>>> ------------------------ >>>>> [1]https://community.jboss.org/wiki/OptimisticLockingInInfinispan >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>>> -- >>>> Galder Zamarreño >>>> Sr. Software Engineer >>>> Infinispan, JBoss Cache >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >> -- >> Galder Zamarreño >> Sr. Software Engineer >> Infinispan, JBoss Cache >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> infinispan-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev -- Galder Zamarreño Sr. Software Engineer Infinispan, JBoss Cache _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
