Just clarified that all invoke(..) and invokeAll(..) methods are transactional. Can someone familiar with these methods update the javadoc?
Igor, will invoke(..) work for your use case? D. On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote: > Taras, is invokeAll() transactional? The javadoc is silent to this fact. > If it is indeed transactional, then we should update the javadoc. > > D. > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Taras Ledkov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ignite compute has no relation to the cache's transaction. >> >> I think that IgniteCache.invokeAll() is appropriate for described case. >> >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Игорь Г <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi, igniters! >> > >> > Before openning JIRA ticket, I want to ask question about affinityCall >> or >> > affinityRun transactions. >> > >> > For example I have batch task to modify many values in someCache >> according >> > to someRule. I want to parallel this task to whole cluster and minimize >> > network traffic. >> > So the resonable choice is affinityCall feature. >> > >> > But I want all this changes to be in one transactoin. i.e. with at least >> > atomicity property (of ACID). And if for some reason my task will be >> > canceled or failed on one node - it should change nothing at all. >> > >> > So, can I achieve this with existing functionality, or how can I >> approach >> > to this task? >> > >> > >
