On 15 May 2012, at 17:33, Paolo Romano wrote: > On 5/15/12 5:21 PM, Manik Surtani wrote: >> >> >> On 15 May 2012, at 17:10, Galder Zamarreño wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> Well, the old scheme was broken and there are several good reasons why we >> moved to a more consistent approach. > I agree Manik, the new locking scheme has been a major improvement, it makes > no sense to spend effort to re-base it on 5.2 ... it's only that a certain > point we misunderstood (or if you want, hoping) that it was still available > somewhere using some mysterious configuration flag :-)
Well, I'm sorry to disappoint … :( >> >> Diego, can't your work be modified to work with the new schemes? > That's the plan. It can, and it will... the point is if we will make it in > time for our project's review (mid june)... but we like challenges! ;-) Great! :) -- Manik Surtani [email protected] twitter.com/maniksurtani Lead, Infinispan http://www.infinispan.org
_______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
