Hi, On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:08, Galder Zamarreño <gal...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Slorg1 wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I guess I will troll a little here but it seems to me that the >> implicit transactions are the issue. >> >> What Galder suggested does makes sense( that you would want a failure >> to put in the cache in some circumstances to have no incidence) but >> some times if too many things are telling something does not make >> sense and cannot be done right... maybe it just should not be (e.g. >> implicit transactions). >> >> I know you feel strongly about the implicit transactions. > > I don't feel strongly about them at all. If someone does it, maybe that's > Mircea.
I did not mean you personally, I only referred to your name for the 'fail silently' feature. Sorry if it sounded like I was singling you out. I meant it as a general 'you', which only includes those who feel strongly about it. > Tbh, the more I think about it, the more I dislike implicit transactions... I think they are really counter intuitive and very expensive, and arguably wrong in a pure transactional context like mine. I said 'arguably' because I do not want to restart the discussion about it, I just wanted to say people on this thread have different views about them, and leave it to that. >> Food for thought, I patched my version not to have them and I can tell >> you it works great! > > Glad to know it's working fine for you :). > > Plenty going on at the moment. I'll be shortly getting around to reviewing > your work… it's not forgotten! I know, I am patient. Also, I have a few updates to give whenever I am done with my work here, so if you get to it before I send them, let me know. Regards, Slorg1 -- Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email ? _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev