Do you really use Long Transactions on the call to update()? Even if I call commit() after?
-----Original Message----- From: Todd V. Jonker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 3:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [castor-dev] JDO: Why doesn't recursive update happen automat ically? On 2/14/02 3:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > For this reason (and others not directly related to Castor), I've decided to > _not_ use Long Transactions. Basically, I call commit() after I retrieve > each object. From my reading of the Castor JDO docs and some testing, this > should "disconnect" the object from the persistence framework. Yeah, this is what I've been doing for months. However, I'd like to take advantage of the conflict detection inherent in Long Transactions, to avoid the danger of losing changes due to interleaved updates. I also (mistakenly) thought it would be much easier, because properly saving changes between two transactions forces you to reload every connected object. The lack of documentation led me to believe that this wasn't necessary when using update. > My code explicitly persists the object at different times using > Database.update() followed by a commit(). I haven't run into a problem yet > with this approach. But if you call update you ARE using long transactions! Todd V. Jonker Inpath Solutions, LLC www.inpathsol.com ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-dev ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-dev
