Hi, On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:45, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@infinispan.org> wrote: > 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?
Well, my whole application runs having each HTTP request running as 1 transaction. So I cannot 'just' disable transaction. It is a core element of the application as you might understand. So, no, I could not disable transactions, and as posted previous in BETA5 I also could not just turn off the autoCommit from the configurations. Regards, Slorg1. -- Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email ? _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
