On 11 Jul 2011, at 13:21, Mircea Markus wrote: > > On 11 Jul 2011, at 10:45, Manik Surtani wrote: > >> >> On 4 Jul 2011, at 07:57, Galder Zamarreño wrote: >> >>> I get the feeling that those atomic operations are particularly useful when >>> transactions are not used cos they allow you to reduce to cache operations >>> to one, hence avoiding the need to use a lock or synchronized block, or in >>> our case, a transaction. >> >> Precisely. I think the atomic ops should be documented such that they are >> not used within a transaction scope, possibly either: >> >> 1) suspending any ongoing tx if used, or >> 2) throwing an illegal state exception if used within a tx scope > +1 for the 2nd approach. At least up to the moment one comes with a use case > for using them within a tx.
Yes, it is just more explicit that way. -- Manik Surtani ma...@jboss.org twitter.com/maniksurtani Lead, Infinispan http://www.infinispan.org _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
