On Sep 5, 8:18 pm, Rich Hickey <richhic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given sufficient history, readers will not be retried due to the
> activity of writers. It is true that while history is being
> dynamically acquired there may be retries. Unless you have some
> pathological transaction relationships, that history acquisition will
> occur in a small amount of time, and thus is being ignored as would a
> constant factor. Perhaps 'never' is too strong a term, but history
> acquisition is somewhat of an implementation detail. If that build-up
> phase is an actual problem, you now have :min-history to mitigate it.
Ok - thanks for the clarification, and :min-history seems a very
practical tool.
> There is potential for a 'separate worlds' design, but the devil is in
> the details of allocation of refs to worlds. While the single shared
> CAS is a theoretical bottleneck, I'd have to see it become an actual
> bottleneck before introducing that complexity.
Yes, I understand. Perhaps it may become another "knob" of the STM
system if there is a convincing use-case, e.g.
(ref {} :min-history 42 :world :x)
/K
/Karl
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
