On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
[hidden email]>
wrote:
> I do not think it should be analogous to "get". Get creates implicit lock
> which is released when transaction ends. Lock is obtained explicitly and
> should be released explicitly as well.
>
Hm… I guess I didn’t think it through. I agree, then we should not support
explicit locks within transactions, so no changes to current behavior.
Let’s just fix the NPE then.
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > It is currently not supported, but it should not throw an NPE. To be
> > honest, I am not sure why we don’t support it. IMHO, it should be
> analogous
> > to a get() call which returns no value.
> >
> > Can anyone shed some light on this?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >
[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > Do we allow to acquire explicit locks (cache.lock(..) method) within an
> > > explicit transaction? Currently it doesn't work which makes me think
> that
> > > it's an invalid usage, but it fails with NPE [1]. Do we need to fix it
> or
> > > just provide proper message?
> > >
> > > [1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1988> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> >
>
Locked
