[infinispan-dev] Retrieval operations with the IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES flag

[Dan Berindei]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Mircea Markus <mmarkus at redhat.com> wrote:

>
> On 3 Jun 2013, at 19:01, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Fair point... ok, let's leave it as it is now.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Galder Zamarreño <galder at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi guys
> >>
> >> CacheLoaderInterceptor and DistributionInterceptor both honour the
> IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES flag for get commands, but I think it would be more
> useful if they ignored it - just like they ignore it for conditional
> commands.
> >>
> >> That would make it possible for users to only keep a reference to a
> cache.getAdvancedCache().withFlags(IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES) and use it for
> both read and write operations.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >
> > If I was to take the role of a colleague of the person who's written the
> Infinispan code, it'd be very confused to see a cache reference created
> with IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES being used for a get() operation… I can see
> myself thinking: "Why on earth do you call get with IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES?"
>
> Isn't Galder's point not to allow invoking get with IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES?
> As both of you pointed out, Get + IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES doesn't make any
> sense :-)
>
>
You'd think conditional operations with IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES don't make
sense either, yet we have a special case to handle those as if the flag
wasn't present :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/infinispan-dev/attachments/20130604/1e8efdb5/attachment.html