On 20 February 2017 at 20:11, Tristan Tarrant <ttarr...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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.
I get that. But the "glorified putAll which also supports removes" is important to have. > > 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 _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
