If you can figure out the right SQL that SQLServer needs to create an exclusive table lock (and keep it open until the connection dies) then it should be easy to patch the JDBC adapter
Cool. Will give it a go when some of the noise dies down over here. cheers, j. On 12/6/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/6/06, Jamie McCrindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > heh, it was the thread where you said "use a different database" :) here's > the fix message: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org/msg03257.html Thanks :) > > I don't remember I'm afraid - I do remember a fix going in for pure > > JDBC Master/Slave for MySQL. I"m not sure if the pure JDBC > > Master/Slave has been tested yet for SQL Server - fancy trying it out? > > :) > > Happy to! Just wanted to know if I was buying myself some trouble without > the locking support. It should be pretty simple to fix. We recently had a similar issue with MySQL and the fix was just figuring out the right SQL to create an exclusive lock on the table so we can implement master/slave properly using JDBC. If you can figure out the right SQL that SQL Server needs to create an exclusive table lock (and keep it open until the connection dies) then it should be easy to patch the JDBC adapter -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
