Re: MV Keys

mAsterdam wrote:
> vc wrote:
> > mAsterdam wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >>Extrapolating, ISTM your answer to the question:
> >>"could this removeAt operation possibly be useful
> >>in a concurrent environment?" would be
> >>that it is irrelevant:
> >>removeAt(index) isn't even valid under concurrency.
> >>
> >>Am I understanding your point correctly?
> >
> >
> > No. The concurrency is irrelevant thanks to the CC's ensuring that the
> > concurrent execution result is equivalent to some serial execution of
> > the same transactions. It does not matter what kind of write
> > operations you want to have in your database.
>
> "The concurrency is irrelevant"
> In this case this goes to say 'It doesn't matter wether
> there is concurrency or not, the effect of
> OurSharedList.removeAt(3) is the same.'
>
> What should the effect of OurSharedList.removeAt(3) be?

Obviously, it should be the same regardless of whether you run transactions concurrently or sequentially.

I was objecting to your invoking the ghost of concurrency:

"Aside (the example surely illustrates your point) could this removeAt operation possibly be useful in a concurrent environment?
"

I do not know whether the operation is useful per se, you tell me. Received on Sat Mar 04 2006 - 11:34:31 CST