Vote for #2. I think no one will change this defaults in configuration in #1.
2018-06-13 18:29 GMT+03:00 Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > Vote for #2 since it can shed light on hidden bug at production. > > ср, 13 июн. 2018 г. в 18:10, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > >: > > > Igniters, > > > > Bumping up this discussion. The fix has been implemented and it is fine > > from the technical point of view, but since the fix did not make it to > the > > Ignite 2.0, the implemented fix [1] now will be a breaking change for > > current Ignite users. > > > > I see the following options: > > 1) Have the fix merged, but do not change the defaults - atomic caches > will > > still be allowed in transactions by default and only configuration change > > will make Ignite throw exceptions in this case > > 2) Have the fix merged as is and describe this change in the release > notes > > 3) Postpone the fix until Ignite 3.0 > > > > I would vote for option #1 and change only the defaults in Ignite 3.0. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2313 > > > > ср, 5 апр. 2017 г. в 22:53, Дмитрий Рябов <somefire...@gmail.com>: > > > > > IGNITE-2313 done, can you review it? > > > > > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1709/files > > > JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2313 > > > CI: http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId= > > > IgniteTests_RatJavadoc&branch_IgniteTests=pull%2F1709% > > > 2Fhead&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > > > > > > 2017-03-29 20:58 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
