Re: [infinispan-dev] Retrieval operations with the IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES flag
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Ray Tsang <saturnism(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2013, at 13:26, Mircea Markus <mmarkus(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> On 4 Jun 2013, at 13:55, Dan Berindei <dan.berindei(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> 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 :-)
>>
>>
>> You'd think conditional operations with IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES don't make
sense either, yet we have a special case to handle those as if the flag
wasn't present :)
>
> I guess you're referring to ISPN-3141?
Exactly. Does it make sense to call
cache.withFlags(IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES).putIfAbsent(k, v)? What should it
return?
> Still I think Get + IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES doesn't make any
sense :-)
+1. It definitely threw me off...
Ok, maybe IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES wouldn't be the best flag name for what I
had in mind... I was thinking of a scenario where the application needs to
do both reads and writes, but for writes it never needs to know the
previous value. In that scenario it would make sense to call something like
cache =
cacheManager.getCache().getAdvancedCache().withFlags(IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES_ON_WRITES)
at the beginning and only ever use that reference in the application. I
agree that using the existing IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES flag for that would be a
bit misleading, though.
Should we change anything about the IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES, then? I guess it
would be relatively simple to make it so that get() operations with the
flag throw an exception and (optionally) put() operations always return
null. Should I create an issue in JIRA for that?
Cheers
Dan
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 3.4 KB)