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?
Still I think Get + IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES doesn't make any sense :-)
+1. It definitely threw me off...
Cheers,
--
Mircea Markus
Infinispan lead (
www.infinispan.org)
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev