On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Mircea Markus <mmar...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 3 Jun 2013, at 19:01, Dan Berindei <dan.berin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Fair point... ok, let's leave it as it is now. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Galder Zamarreño <gal...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Dan Berindei <dan.berin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hi guys > >> > >> CacheLoaderInterceptor and DistributionInterceptor both honour the > IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES flag for get commands, but I think it would be more > useful if they ignored it - just like they ignore it for conditional > commands. > >> > >> That would make it possible for users to only keep a reference to a > cache.getAdvancedCache().withFlags(IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES) and use it for > both read and write operations. > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > If I was to take the role of a colleague of the person who's written the > Infinispan code, it'd be very confused to see a cache reference created > with IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES being used for a get() operation… I can see > myself thinking: "Why on earth do you call get with IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES?" > > Isn't Galder's point not to allow invoking get with IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES? > As both of you pointed out, Get + IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES doesn't make any > sense :-) > > You'd think conditional operations with IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES don't make sense either, yet we have a special case to handle those as if the flag wasn't present :)
_______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev