Re: [infinispan-dev] Some flags are incompatible with implicit transactions
On Dec 14, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
On 13 Dec 2011, at 16:00, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> On 13 December 2011 13:48, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>
>>> Why would you avoid FORCE_WRITE_LOCK ?
>>
>> Does the following make sense?
>>
>> tx.begin()
>> cache.withFlags(FORCE_WRITE_LOCK).get(…)
>> tx.commit()
>
> Yeah it's pointless to use locks if you have a single operation, but I
> might want to do more operations in a single transaction.. actually
> what's the point of using a transaction if I have only one operation?
WIthout transaction it is possible that the operation is only partially applied, i.e. on
a subset of numOwners, resulting in inconsistent state.
Good point Mircea. You should definitely document that cos that's pretty much the sole
reason to use implicit transactions, something users should know.
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Engineer
Infinispan, JBoss Cache