Re: [infinispan-dev] Some flags are incompatible with implicit transactions

Hi all, Re: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1556 Re: https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/pull/719/files#r288994 The fix I suggest works well with explicit transactions, but if we leave this as is, implicit txs might leak transactions. The reason is because if we allow a put with FAIL_SILENT which fails with an implicit tx, then the tx won't be committed nor removed from tx table. But, does FAIL_SILENT make sense with implicit tx? Well, it doesn't. The point of FAIL_SILENT is to avoid a failure rollbacking a tx and being noisy. So, it implies that there's a bigger, external, transaction within which this operation is called. And it's not just FAIL_SILENT, there're other flags do not make sense with implicit transactions, such as FORCE_WRITE_LOCK:   /**    * Forces a write lock, even if the invocation is a read operation.  Useful when reading an entry to later update it    * within the same transaction, and is analogous in behavior and use case to a <tt>select ... for update ... </tt>    * SQL statement.    */ So, I think my fix is right here, but what we really need is it's a way to stop people from using certain flags with implicit transactions. Here's my (quickly thought) list: FORCE_WRITE_LOCK FAIL_SILENTLY PUT_FOR_EXTERNAL_READ Any others? Cheers, -- Galder Zamarreño Sr. Software Engineer Infinispan, JBoss Cache _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev