On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:27 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Aug 24, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote:
REQUIRED -> REQUIRES_NEW
REQUIRED -> NOT_SUPPORTED
Hey Jean-Louis, do you think you'll need the REQUIRED ->
REQUIRES_NEW scenario? Technically neither of the above is legal
or portable, but I think we can support REQUIRED->NOT_SUPPORTED just
fine, but the other may be a tricky rule to bend code wise.
The code I'm working on now associates a Transaction with the
o.a.o.core.stateful.Instance object (basically a new field) and uses
that to determine if you are attempting to use the instance outside
the transaction. Going from a transaction state to a non
transaction state is doable. Going from a transaction state to
another transaction state (essentially an nested transaction) would
require a bit of fanciness.
Grr. Got something that works, but now am running into an issue with
one of the more obscure restrictions that you can't remove a bean via
its EJBObject or EJBHome interface if it is in a transaction. It's
breaking one of our tests and I know it will break the TCK.
Still hacking.
-David
