Hi guys
I've found a deadlock with transactions spanning multiple caches
during rehashing if the joiner's caches are started sequentially (for
more details see https://gist.github.com/1124740)
After discussing a bit on IRC with Manik and Galderz it appears the
only solution for 5.0.0.FINAL would
2011/8/4 Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com:
Hi guys
I've found a deadlock with transactions spanning multiple caches
during rehashing if the joiner's caches are started sequentially (for
more details see https://gist.github.com/1124740)
After discussing a bit on IRC with Manik and Galderz
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Sanne Grinovero sa...@infinispan.org wrote:
2011/8/4 Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com:
Hi guys
I've found a deadlock with transactions spanning multiple caches
during rehashing if the joiner's caches are started sequentially (for
more details see
On Aug 4, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
2011/8/4 Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com:
/snip
Are you proposing a temporary API to make things work before ISPN-658
is solved? I don't like the Future approach, it's still unclear that I
have to send all requests before blocking on
On 4 Aug 2011, at 14:01, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
On Aug 4, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
2011/8/4 Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com:
/snip
Are you proposing a temporary API to make things work before ISPN-658
is solved? I don't like the Future approach, it's still unclear
On Aug 4, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
On 4 Aug 2011, at 14:01, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
On Aug 4, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
2011/8/4 Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com:
/snip
Are you proposing a temporary API to make things work before ISPN-658
is solved? I
On 4 Aug 2011, at 15:12, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
On Aug 4, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
On 4 Aug 2011, at 14:01, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
On Aug 4, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
2011/8/4 Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com:
/snip
Are you proposing a temporary
On Aug 4, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
2011/8/4 Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com:
On Aug 4, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
2011/8/4 Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com:
/snip
Are you proposing a temporary API to make things work before ISPN-658
is solved? I
On Aug 4, 2011, at 4:28 PM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
On Aug 4, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
2011/8/4 Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com:
/snip
agreed, as discussed with Dan we won't throw exceptions but log a
warning to recommend people use the startCaches().
Dan I
H, not sure about the warn message. Surely a no-op and if it's no-op from
the 2nd time onwards, what's the warning about?
My reasoning is that if you're starting caches multiple times, then
you're likely expecting Infinispan to support asymmetric clusters.
Many expect asymmetric clusters
On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
H, not sure about the warn message. Surely a no-op and if it's no-op
from the 2nd time onwards, what's the warning about?
My reasoning is that if you're starting caches multiple times, then
you're likely expecting Infinispan to
2011/8/4 Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com:
On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
H, not sure about the warn message. Surely a no-op and if it's no-op
from the 2nd time onwards, what's the warning about?
My reasoning is that if you're starting caches multiple times, then
12 matches
Mail list logo
