Re: [infinispan-dev] Some flags are incompatible with implicit transactions
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:08, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)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 ?