Yes, sorry. The test works correctly: tx started on grid0 does not affect
cache1, because they are on different nodes. Thus the operation
cache1.put(1, ) is successfully committed.
Still I would not recommend to rely on any of observed behaviors here,
because Ignite was not designed for mixing
There is no bug.
Dmitriy, you should introduce a variable:
*cache0 = grid(0).cache(null);*
Then you should use cache0 variable to do a cache put.
You cannot use transaction API from grid0 and then cache API from grid1. In
a normal environment, the cache0 and cache1 variables would not even be
p
Looks like a bug to me.
Sergi
2017-04-12 21:03 GMT+03:00 Дмитрий Рябов :
> Why not? I do something with cache inside transaction. The only reason to
> not rollback is another node?
>
> 2017-04-12 19:52 GMT+03:00 Andrey Mashenkov :
>
> > Hi Dmitry,
> >
> > Looks like you start transaction on node
Why not? I do something with cache inside transaction. The only reason to
not rollback is another node?
2017-04-12 19:52 GMT+03:00 Andrey Mashenkov :
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> Looks like you start transaction on node "grid(0)", but update value on
> another node "grid(1)".
> So, technically, it is not nes
Hi Dmitry,
Looks like you start transaction on node "grid(0)", but update value on
another node "grid(1)".
So, technically, it is not nested transactions, right?
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Дмитрий Рябов
wrote:
> Hello, igniters. I start the node and create a transactional cache on it,
> o
Hello, igniters. I start the node and create a transactional cache on it,
on the other node I start the transaction and "put" in previously created
cache and rollback transaction. So what should I get? Value stored before
transaction or inside rolled transaction?
public void testRollback() throws
