On 15 Apr 2011, at 17:53, Olaf Bergner wrote: > Am 15.04.11 17:01, schrieb Manik Surtani: >> On 10 Apr 2011, at 21:07, Olaf Bergner wrote: >> >>> Keep in mind that so far I have completely ignored the issue of >>> supporting transactions when reading and writing large objects. I would >>> prefer to have a working core implementation before tackling the more >>> complicated aspects. >> >> How do you maintain consistency without transactions? E.g., Concurrent >> readers and a writer? >> >> Concurrent writers isn't a problem since we don't support this, however we >> may be able to add some kind of concurrent write support if we consider the >> streams as append-only. > I never meant to actually *publish* large object support without > mechanisms ensuring consistency in place.
Of course - I wasn't suggesting that stuff was fully baked, I was just curious as to your plans on next steps, etc. :-) > Yet I would prefer to have > most of the other issues - what should the official API's first > iteration look like?, is the approach I've taken so far basically sane? > and so forth - sorted before moving on to the more complicated aspects. > So far, it took some time to get used to the code base and acquire > *some* knowledge about INFINISPAN's inner workings, but it hasn't been > exactly rocket science. Just a lot of work. Ensuring consistency, > however, won't probably be that easy. Especially since I only have a > very shallow understanding of INFINISPAN's transaction support's inner > workings. Mircea will be able to help you on this. I think he has some slides on the subject that he's preparing to present at JUDCon - I'm sure he'll be happy to share them with you. :-) Cheers Manik -- Manik Surtani ma...@jboss.org twitter.com/maniksurtani Lead, Infinispan http://www.infinispan.org _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev