Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should the atomicity be part of the adapter? #20

Open
mxstbr opened this issue Jan 13, 2017 · 0 comments
Open

Should the atomicity be part of the adapter? #20

mxstbr opened this issue Jan 13, 2017 · 0 comments

Comments

@mxstbr
Copy link
Member

mxstbr commented Jan 13, 2017

I don't know how many databases support atomic operations, but it might make sense to move the atomicity requirement to the adapters. That way if a database supports atomic operations the core doesn't do any unnecessary work.

This probably depends quite highly on #19, as this is hard to write and prove without a good test suite if the database does not have atomic operations. We could also provide a wrapper to make generic, non-atomic put operations atomic to make that step easier.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant