Re: [infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap

2014-02-10 Thread Mircea Markus
Dropping the FGAM API is just an idea and there were valid concerns for not doing it immediately. Indeed the reason it was considered for removal is in order not to keep around two APIs that do the same thing. That is if really do the same thing. As a first step would be good to enhance the gro

Re: [infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap

2014-02-10 Thread Sanne Grinovero
On 10 February 2014 09:02, Galder Zamarreño wrote: > > On 27 Jan 2014, at 11:27, Dan Berindei wrote: > >> I think it's way too early to discuss removing FineGrainedAtomicMap and >> AtomicMap, as long as we don't have a concrete alternative with similar >> properties. > > You have a point there,

Re: [infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap

2014-02-10 Thread Galder Zamarreño
On 27 Jan 2014, at 11:27, Dan Berindei wrote: > I think it's way too early to discuss removing FineGrainedAtomicMap and > AtomicMap, as long as we don't have a concrete alternative with similar > properties. You have a point there, but we can’t ignore the feedback that says that atomic maps

Re: [infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap

2014-02-10 Thread Galder Zamarreño
The delta’s will remain, but they’re each key/value pair. Example: say you want to store a dehydrated list of three elements (“one”, “two”, “three”) in Infinispan Before you’d do (approx): key=my-list value=AtomicMap(k=1,v=“one”, k=2,v=“two”, k3=“v3”) Internally, we’d track deltas and only se

Re: [infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap

2014-02-10 Thread Galder Zamarreño
On 20 Jan 2014, at 12:32, Pedro Ruivo wrote: > Hi, > > On 01/20/2014 11:28 AM, Galder Zamarreño wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Dropping AtomicMap and FineGrainedAtomicMap was discussed last week in the >> F2F meeting [1]. It's complex and buggy, and we'd recommend people to use >> the Grouping API

Re: [infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap

2014-01-27 Thread Emmanuel Bernard
On Mon 2014-01-27 12:27, Dan Berindei wrote: > Cache.getGroup(groupName) is just a method name at this point, we don't > have any idea how it will compare to AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap from a > transaction isolation or performance perspective. BTW, do we really need > the group name to be a Str

Re: [infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap

2014-01-27 Thread Dan Berindei
I think it's way too early to discuss removing FineGrainedAtomicMap and AtomicMap, as long as we don't have a concrete alternative with similar properties. Cache.getGroup(groupName) is just a method name at this point, we don't have any idea how it will compare to AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap fr

Re: [infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap

2014-01-22 Thread Mircea Markus
On Jan 21, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Vladimir Blagojevic wrote: > I agree with Erik here. Deltas are used in M/R and I've never detected > any problems so far. > On 1/21/2014, 1:39 PM, Erik Salter wrote: >> Please don't remove the Delta stuff. That's quite useful, especially for >> large collections.

Re: [infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap

2014-01-21 Thread Vladimir Blagojevic
I agree with Erik here. Deltas are used in M/R and I've never detected any problems so far. On 1/21/2014, 1:39 PM, Erik Salter wrote: > Please don't remove the Delta stuff. That's quite useful, especially for > large collections. > > Erik > ___ infinis

Re: [infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap

2014-01-21 Thread Erik Salter
infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap Hi, On 01/20/2014 11:28 AM, Galder Zamarreño wrote: > Hi all, > > Dropping AtomicMap and FineGrainedAtomicMap was discussed last week in the F2F meeting [1]. It's complex and buggy, a

Re: [infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap

2014-01-21 Thread Mircea Markus
On Jan 20, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Galder Zamarreño wrote: > Hi all, > > Dropping AtomicMap and FineGrainedAtomicMap was discussed last week in the > F2F meeting [1]. It's complex and buggy, and we'd recommend people to use the > Grouping API instead [2]. Grouping API would allow data to reside to

Re: [infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap

2014-01-20 Thread Emmanuel Bernard
Then cf the detailed feedback from that mailing list from the last time we discussed it :) There was specifically some feedback on how we use it for OGM and how we need a way to retrieve all entries for a given group (at least). Emmanuel On Mon 2014-01-20 12:28, Galder Zamarreño wrote: > Hi all,

Re: [infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap

2014-01-20 Thread Pedro Ruivo
Hi, On 01/20/2014 11:28 AM, Galder Zamarreño wrote: > Hi all, > > Dropping AtomicMap and FineGrainedAtomicMap was discussed last week in the > F2F meeting [1]. It's complex and buggy, and we'd recommend people to use the > Grouping API instead [2]. Grouping API would allow data to reside togethe

[infinispan-dev] Dropping AtomicMap/FineGrainedAtomicMap

2014-01-20 Thread Galder Zamarreño
Hi all, Dropping AtomicMap and FineGrainedAtomicMap was discussed last week in the F2F meeting [1]. It's complex and buggy, and we'd recommend people to use the Grouping API instead [2]. Grouping API would allow data to reside together, while the standard map API would apply per-key locking. W