On 14 Dec 2011, at 13:55, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
Yeah it's pointless to use locks if you have a single operation, but I
might want to do more operations in a single transaction.. actually
what's the point of using a transaction if I have only one operation?
WIthout transaction it is
On 13 Dec 2011, at 14:10, Galder Zamarreño gal...@jboss.org wrote:
Hi all,
Re: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1556
Re: https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/pull/719/files#r288994
The fix I suggest works well with explicit transactions, but if we leave this
as is, implicit
On 13 Dec 2011, at 15:49, Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com wrote:
On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
Why would you avoid FORCE_WRITE_LOCK ?
Does the following make sense?
tx.begin()
cache.withFlags(FORCE_WRITE_LOCK).get(…)
tx.commit()
It doesn't in my view.
On 13 Dec 2011, at 16:00, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
On 13 December 2011 13:48, Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com wrote:
On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
Why would you avoid FORCE_WRITE_LOCK ?
Does the following make sense?
tx.begin()
On 13 Dec 2011, at 17:04, Slorg1 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
On Dec 14, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
On 13 Dec 2011, at 16:00, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
On 13 December 2011 13:48, Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com wrote:
On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
Why would you avoid FORCE_WRITE_LOCK ?
Does the following
On 14 Dec 2011, at 15:55, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
On Dec 14, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
On 13 Dec 2011, at 16:00, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
On 13 December 2011 13:48, Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com wrote:
On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
Why would
On 13 Dec 2011, at 19:08, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
On Dec 13, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Slorg1 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
Hi all,
Re: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1556
Re: https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/pull/719/files#r288994
The fix I suggest works well with explicit transactions, but if we leave this
as is, implicit txs might leak transactions. The reason is because if we allow
a put with
On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
Why would you avoid FORCE_WRITE_LOCK ?
Does the following make sense?
tx.begin()
cache.withFlags(FORCE_WRITE_LOCK).get(…)
tx.commit()
It doesn't in my view. You force a write lock to then to something within a
transaction with the
-
From: infinispan-dev-boun...@lists.jboss.org
[mailto:infinispan-dev-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Galder
Zamarreño
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 8:49 AM
To: infinispan -Dev List
Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] Some flags are incompatible with implicit
transactions
On Dec 13, 2011, at 2
...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Sanne Grinovero
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:24 AM
To: infinispan -Dev List
Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] Some flags are incompatible with implicit
transactions
Right, it's also very useful to acquire locks on aggregates or groups
by locking a representative
On Dec 13, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
On 13 December 2011 13:48, Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com wrote:
On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
Why would you avoid FORCE_WRITE_LOCK ?
Does the following make sense?
tx.begin()
] Some flags are incompatible with implicit
transactions
On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
Why would you avoid FORCE_WRITE_LOCK ?
Does the following make sense?
tx.begin()
cache.withFlags(FORCE_WRITE_LOCK).get(…)
tx.commit()
It doesn't in my view. You force
-
From: infinispan-dev-boun...@lists.jboss.org
[mailto:infinispan-dev-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Sanne Grinovero
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:24 AM
To: infinispan -Dev List
Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] Some flags are incompatible with implicit
transactions
Right, it's
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:08, Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com wrote:
On Dec 13, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Slorg1 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
16 matches
Mail list logo
