On 12 Jun 2013, at 13:14, Galder Zamarreño <gal...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Adrian Nistor <anis...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Maybe we could just clarify the javadoc of IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES and say that >> it only applies to write operations and is ignored for everything else? Why >> punish the user with an exception when doing a 'get'? >> >> We already document there's a (very common-sense) exception for conditional >> writes were the flag is ignored (ISPN-3141). > > I wonder if anyone noticed my reply earlier... > > "The flag business does need a big re-think. Not only to separate internal > from external flags (we have a jira for that [1]), but also to have a way to > define which flags can be passed to a particular operation, in a way that's > type-safe, and without resulting in a runtime error of the likes of "X flag > cannot be used with Y operation". IOW, any error on which flag can be used > with what operation should ideally be caught at compilation time. I don't > have specific ideas on this right now, but I think it'd be good to achieve > this." > > IOW, I suggest we leave it as it is. We need to re-think it anyway. So let's > tackle it in 6.0 so that a get operation can never be passed > IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES flag, and this being something that's caught at > **compilation time**. this would be the elegant way of doing it. > > I'm just about to add another internal flag to Flag as a result of the JCache > 0.7 upgrade…, so need to tackle ISPN-2201 to avoid causing more confusion, > and alongside avoid the issues that have been highlighted WRT which > operations are allowed which flags. I'm happy to do this for 6.0. > > [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2201 I've update the JIRA to track the fact that IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES + get should not be possible. 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