On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do not think it should be analogous to "get". Get creates implicit lock > which is released when transaction ends. Lock is obtained explicitly and > should be released explicitly as well. > Hm… I guess I didn’t think it through. I agree, then we should not support explicit locks within transactions, so no changes to current behavior. Let’s just fix the NPE then. > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > It is currently not supported, but it should not throw an NPE. To be > > honest, I am not sure why we don’t support it. IMHO, it should be > analogous > > to a get() call which returns no value. > > > > Can anyone shed some light on this? > > > > D. > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > Do we allow to acquire explicit locks (cache.lock(..) method) within an > > > explicit transaction? Currently it doesn't work which makes me think > that > > > it's an invalid usage, but it fails with NPE [1]. Do we need to fix it > or > > > just provide proper message? > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1988 > > > > > > -Val > > > > > >
