<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 14 Dec 2011, at 15:55, Galder Zamarreño wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>On Dec 14, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On 13 Dec 2011, at 16:00, Sanne Grinovero wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On 13 December 2011 13:48, Galder Zamarreño <<a href="mailto:galder@redhat.com">galder@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Why would you avoid FORCE_WRITE_LOCK ?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Does the following make sense?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">tx.begin()<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">cache.withFlags(FORCE_WRITE_LOCK).get(…)<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">tx.commit()<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Yeah it's pointless to use locks if you have a single operation, but I<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">might want to do more operations in a single transaction.. actually<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">what's the point of using a transaction if I have only one operation?<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">WIthout transaction it is possible that the operation is only partially applied, i.e. on a subset of numOwners, resulting in inconsistent state.<br></blockquote><br>Good point Mircea. You should definitely document that cos that's pretty much the sole reason to use implicit transactions, something users should know.<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#007521"><br></font></div></blockquote>Nope. The reason the induced transactions(autoCommit) were added is backward compatibility: prev infinispan versions allowed mixed cache access: i.e. both transactional and non-transactional calls to a cache. Starting with 5.1, an exception is thrown if a cache method is invoked outside of a tx's context, unless autoCommit is set to true.</div><br></body></html>