Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-22 Thread Dan Berindei
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Radim Vansa wrote: > On 02/22/2017 09:11 AM, Dan Berindei wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Radim Vansa wrote: >>> On 02/21/2017 07:14 PM, Dan Berindei wrote: But doesn't the functional API's evalMany() provide

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-22 Thread Radim Vansa
On 02/22/2017 09:53 AM, Radim Vansa wrote: > On 02/22/2017 09:11 AM, Dan Berindei wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Radim Vansa wrote: >>> On 02/21/2017 07:14 PM, Dan Berindei wrote: But doesn't the functional API's evalMany() provide something very close to

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-22 Thread Radim Vansa
On 02/22/2017 09:11 AM, Dan Berindei wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Radim Vansa wrote: >> On 02/21/2017 07:14 PM, Dan Berindei wrote: >>> But doesn't the functional API's evalMany() provide something very >>> close to the API you're suggesting? >>> >>> Dan >>> >>>

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-22 Thread Dan Berindei
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Radim Vansa wrote: > On 02/21/2017 07:14 PM, Dan Berindei wrote: >> But doesn't the functional API's evalMany() provide something very >> close to the API you're suggesting? >> >> Dan >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Radim Vansa

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-21 Thread Radim Vansa
On 02/21/2017 07:14 PM, Dan Berindei wrote: > But doesn't the functional API's evalMany() provide something very > close to the API you're suggesting? > > Dan > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Radim Vansa wrote: >> On 02/21/2017 05:16 PM, Tristan Tarrant wrote: >>> On

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-21 Thread Dan Berindei
But doesn't the functional API's evalMany() provide something very close to the API you're suggesting? Dan On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Radim Vansa wrote: > On 02/21/2017 05:16 PM, Tristan Tarrant wrote: >> On 21/02/17 16:29, Sanne Grinovero wrote: You haven't

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-21 Thread Radim Vansa
On 02/21/2017 05:16 PM, Tristan Tarrant wrote: > On 21/02/17 16:29, Sanne Grinovero wrote: >>> You haven't explained what "flush" means. Since you separate that from >>> atomicity/consistency, I assume that batches on non-tx cache are just >>> ordered putOrRemoveAll operations, immediately visible

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-21 Thread Tristan Tarrant
On 21/02/17 17:59, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > On 21 February 2017 at 16:16, Tristan Tarrant wrote: >> On 21/02/17 16:29, Sanne Grinovero wrote: You haven't explained what "flush" means. Since you separate that from atomicity/consistency, I assume that batches on

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-21 Thread Sanne Grinovero
On 21 February 2017 at 16:16, Tristan Tarrant wrote: > On 21/02/17 16:29, Sanne Grinovero wrote: >>> You haven't explained what "flush" means. Since you separate that from >>> atomicity/consistency, I assume that batches on non-tx cache are just >>> ordered putOrRemoveAll

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-21 Thread Tristan Tarrant
On 21/02/17 16:29, Sanne Grinovero wrote: >> You haven't explained what "flush" means. Since you separate that from >> atomicity/consistency, I assume that batches on non-tx cache are just >> ordered putOrRemoveAll operations, immediately visible on flush without >> any atomicity. I assume that

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-21 Thread Sanne Grinovero
On 21 February 2017 at 14:52, Dan Berindei wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Sanne Grinovero > wrote: >> On 21 February 2017 at 07:37, Dan Berindei wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Sanne Grinovero

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-21 Thread Sanne Grinovero
On 21 February 2017 at 13:20, Radim Vansa wrote: > On 02/21/2017 09:39 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: >> On 21 February 2017 at 07:37, Dan Berindei wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Sanne Grinovero >>> wrote: -1 to

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-21 Thread Dan Berindei
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > On 21 February 2017 at 07:37, Dan Berindei wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Sanne Grinovero >> wrote: >>> -1 to batch removal >>> >>> Frankly I've always

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-21 Thread Radim Vansa
On 02/21/2017 09:39 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > On 21 February 2017 at 07:37, Dan Berindei wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Sanne Grinovero >> wrote: >>> -1 to batch removal >>> >>> Frankly I've always been extremely negative about the

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-21 Thread Radim Vansa
Hi Denis, recently I had to disable test for move() operation in pessimistic cache [1] because the way move is implemented cannot work. I'll be happy to consult possible fix (please use another thread for that). For the record, this is not exhaustive list of problems, I haven't touched tree

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-21 Thread Sanne Grinovero
On 21 February 2017 at 07:37, Dan Berindei wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 8:02 PM, 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. It's

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-21 Thread Dan Berindei
+1 to remove the async transactional modes +1 to remove batching I'm ambivalent about the tree module. I think we should be able to get it on a better footing by using the transactions API, but I'm unsure about the amount of work needed. The biggest problem with the tree module and batching, as

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-20 Thread Dan Berindei
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 8:02 PM, 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. It's easy to find several > iterations of rants of mine on this mailing list,

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-20 Thread Denis V. Kirpichenkov
Tristan, yes, I'd like to help. And the list of issues with this module would be something to start with. Thanks. -- Denis On 21.02.2017 01:13, Tristan Tarrant wrote: > It has always been regarded as buggy and unmaintained and more of a > convenience for users coming from the old JBossCache.

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-20 Thread Sanne Grinovero
On 20 February 2017 at 20:11, Tristan Tarrant 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

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-20 Thread Tristan Tarrant
It has always been regarded as buggy and unmaintained and more of a convenience for users coming from the old JBossCache. If you are willing to help out, we can list the most important issues. Tristan On 20/02/17 19:22, Denis V. Kirpichenkov wrote: > Hello. > > May I ask what's wrong with tree

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-20 Thread Tristan Tarrant
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

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-20 Thread Denis V. Kirpichenkov
Hello. May I ask what's wrong with tree module? I work on a project which depends on this module heavily. I hope it is not a huge problem to reimplement tree module or at least some part of it if someone will tell me where to start :) -- Denis On 20.02.2017 23:02, Sanne Grinovero wrote: >

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-20 Thread Sanne Grinovero
-1 to batch removal Frankly I've always been extremely negative about the fact that batches are built on top of transactions. It's easy to find several iterations of rants of mine on this mailing list, especially fierce debates with Mircea. So I'd welcome a separation of these features. Yet,

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-20 Thread Pedro Ruivo
On 20-02-2017 16:12, Bela Ban wrote: > > > On 20/02/17 17:06, Tristan Tarrant wrote: >> Hi guys, we discussed about this a little bit in the past and this >> morning on IRC. Here are some proposed removals: >> >> - Remove the async transactional modes, as they are quite pointless >> - Remove

Re: [infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-20 Thread Bela Ban
On 20/02/17 17:06, Tristan Tarrant wrote: > Hi guys, we discussed about this a little bit in the past and this > morning on IRC. Here are some proposed removals: > > - Remove the async transactional modes, as they are quite pointless > - Remove batching: users should use transactions How do you

[infinispan-dev] Major version cleaning

2017-02-20 Thread Tristan Tarrant
Hi guys, we discussed about this a little bit in the past and this morning on IRC. Here are some proposed removals: - Remove the async transactional modes, as they are quite pointless - Remove batching: users should use transactions - Remove the tree module: it doesn't work properly, and uses