Re: [infinispan-dev] PutForExternalRead and autoCommit
Hi,
See below,
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 14:10, Mircea Markus <mircea.markus(a)jboss.com> wrote:
On 17 Nov 2011, at 15:39, Slorg1 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> See comment below,
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:20, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com> wrote:
[ snip ]
>
> I do not understand the need for #1 to happen given that a running
> transaction already exist. In the case of a replicated cache, that
> transaction exists remotely on all other nodes.
> Thus why not apply the put under the same scope ?
putForExternalRead(PFER) is an operation that has a special semantic different than put -
and that's what would do, i.e. enlist in the calling transaction.
One of reasons PFER was added was to try and do the put, but if not possible the ongoing
transaction should not be affected.
Well, I think that the part I do not understand. Why not fail the
transaction if insert in the cache fails ? The alternative feels very
counter intuitive.
I understand that it is regarded as a "feature", but I do not understand it.
Should not failure at any level of the cache be important to the
caller, and if you really want the error to be hidden, why not
try/catch/swallow ?
Regards,
Slorg1
--
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email ?