On 3 Jun 2013, at 19:01, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei@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@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei@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 :-)