Hi Steve, on HipChat you've asked why hibernate-jcache + Infinispan's implementation of JCache is not enough. It ultimately boils down to
1. performance 2. correctness where (2) can be fine with some providers but then (1) suffers. Infinispan offers transactional mode, but it's not serializable (gosh, sometimes it's even read_uncommitted) and has its quirks. The performance can't be as good as with non-tx mode, too. That's why the native transactional caches support will be dropped in 5.3 and we'll just emit a warning to update their configuration (and continue with non-tx config). As a demonstration of this we can use the putFromLoad. If you implement this as a (ideal serializable) transactional cache putIfAbsent, the provider must either a) lock the key (pessimistic approach) - but we don't want to block other nodes removing data from the cache (on write) or putFromLoading (on read!) b) resolve conflicts when the transaction is committing: you figure out that there are two concurrent updates and rollback one of the transactions - that's not acceptable to us either, as any failure in cache should not affect DB transaction. And there's a risk of blocking between the 2 phases of commit, too. Theoretically you could just wipe any modified data on conflict - I don't know if anyone does that, 'drop everything and proceed with commit' is not something I'd expect from a general-purpose (NoSQL) DB. I recall Alex's JCache implementation (for 5.2) storing some 'lock' objects in the cache, and you probably don't want to wipe those. Interaction with evictAll/removeAll could be also problematic: not sure about the other providers but Infinispan's clear() operation is non-transactional even on tx cache (since Infinispan 7 or so) because it's impractical to resolve all conflicts. I don't know details how others provide that operation but there may be a hidden problem. Last but not least, you assume that the provider is transactional and it provides JCache interface. JCache does not define interaction with JTA, because it was hard to get agreement on non-tx behaviour (why did it take 13 years to complete the JSR?) and it would be even harder for JTA. So what you expect is just your extrapolation or wishful thinking, and it's up to integrators to verify that the unwritten contract is fulfilled within the scope of hibernate-jcache module use. Not that SPI implementors would be in a better position, but at least we are aware that (for us) it's not enough to implement those 3 classes and job's done. Of course the correctness aspect may be ignored with 'it's just a cache' implying 'users expect stale/uncommitted data' as Sanne (who is much closer to the customers than me) keeps repeating. However this is not what 2LC promises as I understand it: the same results as DB would do. I am really grateful that in 5.3 you've provided the CacheTransactionSynchronization that will help us boost (1) even further by allowing us to execute all operations in parallel. And it's good that you've made the SPI more expressive with the intent; there'll be a bunch of TODOs in the 5.3 implementation to cover use cases that were not handled in previous versions but now are obvious. Cheers Radim -- Radim Vansa <rva...@redhat.com> JBoss Performance Team _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
