On 13 December 2011 15:04, Slorg1 <slo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I guess I will troll a little here but it seems to me that the > implicit transactions are the issue. > > What Galder suggested does makes sense( that you would want a failure > to put in the cache in some circumstances to have no incidence) but > some times if too many things are telling something does not make > sense and cannot be done right... maybe it just should not be (e.g. > implicit transactions). > > I know you feel strongly about the implicit transactions. > Food for thought, I patched my version not to have them and I can tell > you it works great!
Interesting; couldn't you achieve the same disabling transactions? _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
