Dima, I doubt you ever heard from users "we need snapshot isolation" because this is implementation detail, rather than public behavior :-) I already explained what we are fixing - broken TX API. 6 possible modes, 5 real modes, 2 broken modes (OPT+RC, OPT+RR), and only *two (!!!)* modes which are really used in practice (PES+RR, OPT+SER). Do you still think it is not broken?
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > I still have a feeling that we are fixing something that was not broken. I > have never heard from any user that they need to do both, blocking and > non-blocking reads in the same transaction. > > The only requests I heard so far are: > - snapshot isolation > - read-only transactions > > D. > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Dima, > > > > My point was that we have a number of read-only methods and I do not want > > to pollute base cache API with their counterparts (get, getAll, getEntry, > > getEntries). Another point is that "pessimistic" reads is relatively rare > > use case comparing to "optimistic". This is why "with" approach looks > > better to me. > > > > Blocking reads doesn't make sense outside of explicit transaction. > > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > You can mix both "optimistic" and "pessimistic" reads in a single > > > > transaction. This is one of the main points of proposed API. Normally > > > users > > > > do not define blocking behavior on TX level. They do that on > > > per-operation > > > > level. > > > > > > > > > > In that case, why do you suggest the "with" API which will set this > flag > > > for all operations. Why not just add "getWithLock()" method? Also, will > > > this method work on non-transactional caches? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > voze...@gridgain.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dima, > > > > > > > > > > > > IgniteCache.withReadForUpdate() :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And how is it better than a pessimistic transaction with read? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
