On Jun 13, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12 Jun 2013, at 13:14, Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com wrote:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Adrian Nistor anis...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote:
On 12 Jun 2013, at 13:14, Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com wrote:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Adrian Nistor anis...@redhat.com wrote:
Maybe we could just clarify the javadoc of IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES and say
On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Adrian Nistor anis...@redhat.com wrote:
Maybe we could just clarify the javadoc of IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES and say that
it only applies to write operations and is ignored for everything else? Why
punish the user with an exception when doing a 'get'?
We already
On 10 Jun 2013, at 11:01, Adrian Nistor anis...@redhat.com wrote:
Maybe we could just clarify the javadoc of IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES and say that
it only applies to write operations and is ignored for everything else? Why
punish the user with an exception when doing a 'get'?
We already
On 10 Jun 2013, at 10:33, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Ray Tsang saturn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 6, 2013, at 13:26, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote:
On 4 Jun 2013, at 13:55, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Ray Tsang saturn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 6, 2013, at 13:26, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote:
On 4 Jun 2013, at 13:55, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
CacheLoaderInterceptor and DistributionInterceptor both honour the
Maybe we could just clarify the javadoc of IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES and say
that it only applies to write operations and is ignored for everything
else? Why punish the user with an exception when doing a 'get'?
We already document there's a (very common-sense) exception for
conditional writes
On Jun 4, 2013, at 2:55 PM, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote:
On 3 Jun 2013, at 19:01, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
Fair point... ok, let's leave it as it is now.
On Mon, Jun 3,
On 4 Jun 2013, at 13:55, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Jun 6, 2013, at 13:26, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote:
On 4 Jun 2013, at 13:55, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
CacheLoaderInterceptor and DistributionInterceptor both honour the
IGNORE_RETURN_VALUES flag for get commands, but I think it would be more
useful if they
On 3 Jun 2013, at 19:01, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
Fair point... ok, let's leave it as it is now.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Mircea Markus mmar...@redhat.com wrote:
On 3 Jun 2013, at 19:01, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
Fair point... ok, let's leave it as it is now.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Jun 3, 2013,
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
Hi Dan,
I'm not sure I understood this. How can I prevent it to return values
if you have the flag ignored? Note that in some cases it makes a huge
performance difference.
Sanne
On 3 June 2013 10:52, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys
CacheLoaderInterceptor and
Sanne, I'm only talking about get operations. I was thinking that if you
call cache.get(key), you want the value of that key, regardless of where it
is stored...
Obviously, write operations would still behave as they do now.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Sanne Grinovero
I agree, eventually we should have separate getAndXxx methods like JSR-107.
The Jokre is cool, but running with an instrumentation agent is never going
to be ok for everyone.
I was thinking about this in the context of AtomicHashMap. It uses
withFlags(SKIP_REMOTE_LOOKUP, DELTA_WRITE,
On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com 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
Fair point... ok, let's leave it as it is now.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Galder Zamarreño gal...@redhat.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys
CacheLoaderInterceptor and DistributionInterceptor both honour the
18 matches
Mail list logo
