On Jun 6, 2013, at 13:26, Mircea Markus <mmar...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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 :-)
+1. It definitely threw me off... > > 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 _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev