[infinispan-dev] Some flags are incompatible with implicit transactions

[Slorg1]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:08, Galder Zamarreño <galder at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Slorg1 wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I guess I will troll a little here but it seems to me that the
>> implicit transactions are the issue.
>>
>> What Galder suggested does makes sense( that you would want a failure
>> to put in the cache in some circumstances to have no incidence) but
>> some times if too many things are telling something does not make
>> sense and cannot be done right... maybe it just should not be (e.g.
>> implicit transactions).
>>
>> I know you feel strongly about the implicit transactions.
>
> I don't feel strongly about them at all. If someone does it, maybe that's Mircea.

I did not mean you personally, I only referred to your name for the
'fail silently' feature. Sorry if it sounded like I was singling you
out. I meant it as a general 'you', which only includes those who feel
strongly about it.

> Tbh, the more I think about it, the more I dislike implicit transactions...

I think they are really counter intuitive and very expensive, and
arguably wrong in a pure transactional context like mine. I said
'arguably' because I do not want to restart the discussion about it, I
just wanted to say people on this thread have different views about
them, and leave it to that.

>> Food for thought, I patched my version not to have them and I can tell
>> you it works great!
>
> Glad to know it's working fine for you :).
>
> Plenty going on at the moment. I'll be shortly getting around to reviewing your work… it's not forgotten!

I know, I am patient. Also, I have a few updates to give whenever I am
done with my work here, so if you get to it before I send them, let me
know.

Regards,

Slorg1

-- 
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email ?