On 27 January 2014 09:38, Pedro Ruivo <pe...@infinispan.org> wrote: > > > On 01/27/2014 09:20 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: >> On 23 January 2014 18:03, Dan Berindei <dan.berin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 22 Jan 2014 16:10, "Pedro Ruivo" <pe...@infinispan.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 01/22/2014 01:58 PM, Dan Berindei wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would also require us to keep a Set<K> for each group, with the keys >>>>> associated with that group. As such, I'm not sure it would be a lot >>>>> easier to implement (correctly) than FineGrainedAtomicMap. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Dan, I didn't understand why do we need to keep a Set<K>. Can you >>>> elaborate? >>> >>> >>> We'd need some way to keep track of the keys that are part of the group, >>> iterating over the entire cache for every getGroup() call would be way too >>> slow. >> >> Right, and load all entries from any CacheStore too :-/ > > IMO, I prefer to iterate over the data container and cache loader when > it is needed than keep the Set<K> for each group. I think the memory > will thank you
Of course. I'm just highlighting how importand Dan's comment is, because we obviously don' t want to load everything from CacheStore. So, tracking which entries are part of the group is essential: failing this, I'm still skeptical about why the Grouping API is a better replacement than FGAM. Sanne _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev