On 3 Jun 2013, at 19:01, Dan Berindei <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fair point... ok, let's leave it as it is now. > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Galder Zamarreño <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Dan Berindei <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi guys >> >> CacheLoaderInterceptor and DistributionInterceptor both honour the >> IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES flag for get commands, but I think it would be more >> useful if they ignored it - just like they ignore it for conditional >> commands. >> >> That would make it possible for users to only keep a reference to a >> cache.getAdvancedCache().withFlags(IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES) and use it for both >> read and write operations. >> >> What do you think? > > If I was to take the role of a colleague of the person who's written the > Infinispan code, it'd be very confused to see a cache reference created with > IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES being used for a get() operation… I can see myself > thinking: "Why on earth do you call get with IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES?" Isn't Galder's point not to allow invoking get with IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES? As both of you pointed out, Get + IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES doesn't make any sense :-) Cheers, -- Mircea Markus Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
