No problem, my intention is to issue a PR later this week.
----- Original Message ----- > On 1 August 2017 at 12:19, Ryan Emerson <remer...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> The option `REMOVE_ALL` seems sensible for the disposable Cache use > >> case. One question though: if one partition has a defined value for a > >> key, while the other partition has no value (null) for this same key, > >> is it considered a conflict? > >> I think you need to clarify if a "null" in a subset of partitions > >> causes the conflict merge to be triggered or not. I think it should: > >> for example having the cache use case in mind, an explicit > >> invalidation needs to be propagated safely. > > > > Yes a combination of null/non-null entries is detected as a conflict. So in > > the use-case you describe, utilising the REMOVE_ALL strategy would result > > in the cache entry being removed from the cache on merge. > > Thanks, looks great. Would you mind clarifying the docs about this? > > Sanne > > > > > Cheers > > Ryan > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
