IGNITE-2313 done, can you review it? PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1709/files JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2313 CI: http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId= IgniteTests_RatJavadoc&branch_IgniteTests=pull%2F1709% 2Fhead&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv
2017-03-29 20:58 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > Sorry, I get lost in tickets. > > Yes, IGNITE-2313 has to be completed in 2.0 if we want to makes this > change. > > — > Denis > > > On Mar 29, 2017, at 2:12 AM, Дмитрий Рябов <somefire...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Savepoints marked for 2.1, exceptions for 2.0. Do you want me to make > > exceptions first? > > > > 2017-03-29 11:24 GMT+03:00 Дмитрий Рябов <somefire...@gmail.com>: > > > >> Finish savepoints or flag&exceptions for atomic operations? > >> Not sure about savepoints. Exceptions - yes. https://issues.apache. > >> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2313 isn't it? > >> > >> 2017-03-29 2:12 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > >> > >>> If we want to make the exception based approach the default one then > the > >>> task has to be released in 2.0. > >>> > >>> Dmitriy Ryabov, do you think you can finish it (dev, review, QA) by the > >>> code freeze data (April 14)? > >>> > >>> — > >>> Denis > >>> > >>>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Sergi Vladykin < > >>> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I think updating an Atomic cache from within a transaction perfectly > >>> makes > >>>>> sense. For example for some kind of operations logging and so forth. > >>> Still > >>>>> I agree that this can be error prone and forbidden by default. I > agree > >>> with > >>>>> Yakov that by default we should throw an exception and have some kind > >>> of > >>>>> flag (on cache or on TX?) to be able to explicitly enable this > >>> behavior. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Agree, this sounds like a good idea. > >>> > >>> > >> > >
