Hi Hans,
I am using only serialization and indices, not transactions. I didn't manage to easily use the serialization of bknr-datastore in a lightweight manner, so I used the serialization of cl-prevalence.
When I started the project I had the feeling that transactions did not really give me benefits (please tell me If I got anything wrong): - It is hard to map complex generic functions to transactions - A rollback costs to much performance to be used for anything except very rare exceptions - There are no thread isolation mechanisms except a global lock. (I can hardly imagine anything else for the used model.)
Now I implemented some features (store-object) of the datastore myself. So I would like to give the datastore itsself another chance and see if its possible to use it without much overhead due to transactions. It is great to hear that there will be a new major release soon.
- Klaus
Out of curiosity: Why are you using cl-prevalence instead of BKNR datastore? I am happy to see someone being actually able to use the indices without the store, but I'm also interested in knowing what our store is lacking to make you chose another, similar solution.
Thanks, Hans
P.S.: In fact, we started with cl-prevalence but found it to be too limited in several aspects. That was why we started writing BKNR datastore.