Sorry, I get lost in tickets. Yes, IGNITE-2313 has to be completed in 2.0 if we want to makes this change.
— Denis > On Mar 29, 2017, at 2:12 AM, Дмитрий Рябов <somefire...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Savepoints marked for 2.1, exceptions for 2.0. Do you want me to make > exceptions first? > > 2017-03-29 11:24 GMT+03:00 Дмитрий Рябов <somefire...@gmail.com>: > >> Finish savepoints or flag&exceptions for atomic operations? >> Not sure about savepoints. Exceptions - yes. https://issues.apache. >> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2313 isn't it? >> >> 2017-03-29 2:12 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: >> >>> If we want to make the exception based approach the default one then the >>> task has to be released in 2.0. >>> >>> Dmitriy Ryabov, do you think you can finish it (dev, review, QA) by the >>> code freeze data (April 14)? >>> >>> — >>> Denis >>> >>>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Sergi Vladykin < >>> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think updating an Atomic cache from within a transaction perfectly >>> makes >>>>> sense. For example for some kind of operations logging and so forth. >>> Still >>>>> I agree that this can be error prone and forbidden by default. I agree >>> with >>>>> Yakov that by default we should throw an exception and have some kind >>> of >>>>> flag (on cache or on TX?) to be able to explicitly enable this >>> behavior. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Agree, this sounds like a good idea. >>> >>> >>
