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

On Dec 14, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Mircea Markus wrote: > > On 13 Dec 2011, at 16:00, Sanne Grinovero wrote: > >> On 13 December 2011 13:48, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote: >>> >>>> Why would you avoid FORCE_WRITE_LOCK ? >>> >>> Does the following make sense? >>> >>> tx.begin() >>> cache.withFlags(FORCE_WRITE_LOCK).get(…) >>> tx.commit() >> >> Yeah it's pointless to use locks if you have a single operation, but I >> might want to do more operations in a single transaction.. actually >> what's the point of using a transaction if I have only one operation? > WIthout transaction it is possible that the operation is only partially applied, i.e. on a subset of numOwners, resulting in inconsistent state. Good point Mircea. You should definitely document that cos that's pretty much the sole reason to use implicit transactions, something users should know.