Igniters, Bumping up this discussion. The fix has been implemented and it is fine from the technical point of view, but since the fix did not make it to the Ignite 2.0, the implemented fix [1] now will be a breaking change for current Ignite users.
I see the following options: 1) Have the fix merged, but do not change the defaults - atomic caches will still be allowed in transactions by default and only configuration change will make Ignite throw exceptions in this case 2) Have the fix merged as is and describe this change in the release notes 3) Postpone the fix until Ignite 3.0 I would vote for option #1 and change only the defaults in Ignite 3.0. Thoughts? [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2313 ср, 5 апр. 2017 г. в 22:53, Дмитрий Рябов <somefire...@gmail.com>: > 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. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
