On 20/02/17 19:02, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > -1 to batch removal > > Frankly I've always been extremely negative about the fact that > batches are built on top of transactions.
I think the discussion is pointless without clearing up what the expected semantics of a batch should be and what the expected advantages over individual invocations should be. A batch is just a glorified putAll which also supports removes. All write ops are queued locally and are then sent in groups to the respective owners. What you get is deferred invocations and 1 remote invocation per unique owner. What you don't get is atomicity and isolation. You should use transactions for that. Tristan -- Tristan Tarrant Infinispan Lead JBoss, a division of Red Hat _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
