I actually think exception makes sense here. Currently it's very error prone - the same code can behave differently depending on configuration. And at the same time I can't imagine a use case which implies using atomic operation within a transaction on purpose. If someone ever does this, it would most likely be done by mistake.
-Val On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > Yakov, > > My vote goes for the current behavior - an atomic operation is applied > right away if it’s a part of a transaction. It’s better not to break > compatibility here, there are already to many incompatible changes in 2.0. > > — > Denis > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > As far as I know operations on atomic caches are applied immediately > > dishonoring any tx context. > > > > I would suggest that atomic cache update operation called from active tx > > throws illegal state exception, unless user intentionally permits this > > update by calling atomicCache.withAllowInTx() (similar to > withSkipStore()). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > --Yakov > >
