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

[Galder Zamarreño]

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 at 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 at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

--
Galder Zamarreño
Sr. Software Engineer
Infinispan, JBoss Cache