Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ISPN-6927 Remove acquireRemoteLock and gtx from ClusteredGetCommand #4494

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

rvansa
Copy link
Member

@rvansa rvansa commented Aug 9, 2016


@Deprecated
default ClusteredGetCommand buildClusteredGetCommand(Object key, long flagsBitSet, boolean acquireRemoteLock, GlobalTransaction gtx) {
if (acquireRemoteLock) throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you please add some information to the exception?

@rvansa
Copy link
Member Author

rvansa commented Sep 1, 2016

Rebased and added exception message.

@slaskawi
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@slaskawi
Copy link
Contributor

slaskawi commented Sep 15, 2016

Integrated thanks! SHA1: 0c8dd2d

@slaskawi slaskawi closed this Sep 15, 2016
@@ -60,8 +61,8 @@ public MarshalledEntry load(Object key) throws PersistenceException {
if (!isCacheReady()) return null;

ClusteredGetCommand clusteredGetCommand = new ClusteredGetCommand(
key, cacheName, EnumUtil.EMPTY_BIT_SET, false, null,
cache.getCacheConfiguration().dataContainer().keyEquivalence());
key, cacheName, EnumUtil.bitSetOf(Flag.SKIP_OWNERSHIP_CHECK),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Was this intentional?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems like a change that got in from the scattered cache (there I use SKIP_OWNERSHIP_CHECK more extensively as it has better meaning than just CACHE_MODE_LOCAL). It is unintentional within a scope of this PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
3 participants