ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Expiry policy for Cache.invoke
Date Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:53:39 GMT
Denis,

I'm confused by the issue. Do you mean that we can use expiry policy other
than the one provided in configuration? How is this possible? Can you point
to the code that implements this logic?

-Val

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
wrote:

> Denis,
>
> I agree that the behavior should be consistent, but you will not find
> anything about transactions in JCache. To my knowledge, JCache does not
> have transactions.
>
> I would file a ticket about the issue you found, so the community could
> address it. If you are interested, perhaps you can contribute a fix
> yourself.
>
> Thanks,
> D.
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhanikov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Igniters!
> >
> > I noticed a weird behavior regarding expiry policy in Ignite. You can
> find
> > an example in the attachment.
> > When you call invoke on a cache with configured CacheStore and
> > ExpiryPolicy, then chosen expiry depends on cache's atomicity mode.
> > If cache is atomic, then "creation" expiry timeout is chosen, but if it
> is
> > transactional - then "access".
> >
> > I think, this behavior should at least be identical in both cases, but
> > what is more important, it should conform to JCache specification.
> > But I wasn't able to find a clear statement regarding this question in
> the
> > specification. Can somebody point out a place in the specification that
> > defines a behavior in such case?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Denis
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message