On 4 Jun 2013, at 13:55, Dan Berindei <dan.berin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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 :) I guess you're referring to ISPN-3141? Still I think Get + IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES doesn't make any sense :-) Cheers, -- Mircea Markus Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
