On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
On 06 Jun 2014, at 15:29, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
On 06 Jun 2014, at 15:04, William Burns <mudokonman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Does that answer your question? Because I’m not sure what you mean by the
key being attached to the Tx.
The difference is say you have a tx1 on thread 1 then on the same
thread you ask for the group, if it is in the transaction controls
whether or not that pending update is seen.
Example:
tx1 starts
// Note key1 is in group 1
cache.put(key1, someValue);
Set<K> keys = cache.getGroup("group1");
// The keys would contain key1 if taking part of transaction.
Yes that would be necessary.
That is provided by repeatable read BTW I think.
It is provided for both REPEATABLE_READ and READ_COMMITTED.
I think there is a disconnect with what we mean when we say part of
the transaction. What we mean when we say part of the transaction is
we literally would suspend any current transaction on that thread,
start a new one if needed and then do the operation, commit/rollback
the new transaction and resume the original one. In this case any
pending updates in the original transaction are not viewable to the
second.
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev