On 9 Jul 2013, at 13:48, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.org wrote:
On 07/09/2013 11:46 AM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.org wrote:
Hi guys,
re: ISPN-2840, ISPN-3235, ISPN-3236
short: transaction isolation in repeatable read
Dan
On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.org wrote:
Hi guys,
re: ISPN-2840, ISPN-3235, ISPN-3236
short: transaction isolation in repeatable read
Dan came up with an idea (a good idea IMO) to change a little the logic
how entries are put in the context for transactional
On 07/09/2013 11:46 AM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.org wrote:
Hi guys,
re: ISPN-2840, ISPN-3235, ISPN-3236
short: transaction isolation in repeatable read
Dan came up with an idea (a good idea IMO) to change a little the logic
how
fine by me :)
On 07/09/2013 05:44 PM, Dan Berindei wrote:
Pedro, I'll integrate the PR as it is, and then you can experiment with
my proposal in another branch/PR.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.org
mailto:pe...@infinispan.org wrote:
On 07/09/2013 11:46
Pedro, I'll integrate the PR as it is, and then you can experiment with my
proposal in another branch/PR.
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.org wrote:
On 07/09/2013 11:46 AM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Pedro Ruivo pe...@infinispan.org
Hi guys,
re: ISPN-2840, ISPN-3235, ISPN-3236
short: transaction isolation in repeatable read
Dan came up with an idea (a good idea IMO) to change a little the logic
how entries are put in the context for transactional caches.
One of the Repeatable Read properties is after a key is accessed,
