2012/7/6 Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]>: > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> > wrote: >> ...I think we can either choose one of two ways: >> - persist each change immediately; this was my initial idea. But >> obviously this has performance and consistency drawbacks. Consistency >> could be sovled with JTA transactions. >> - keep changes in a transient space and have an explicit save call >> >> The second option seems more natural and as long as only one resource >> provider is affected by the changes, everything is fine.... > > IMO, having only one writable resource provider should be the standard > case, the one that we design for. > > Multiple writable resource providers might be cool in theory, but > supporting it 100% is a lot of work, we might keep that for later. > I think having multiple writable resource providers is fine and might make sense. Depending on the kind of data you're storing, you're using a different provider and that's transparent to the client code. However I agree, that even in that case, the standard use case is to do changes to a single resource provider at a a time.
Carsten > -Bertrand -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
