Synch is not the responsibility of dbms, but of container.
Punit
>
>On the EJB 1.1 spec, section 8.4, it says
>"Also, an EJB object may be deleted directly using other
>means than the remove() operation (e.g. by deletion of a database
>record). The direct insert and direct delete transitions in
>the diagram represent such direct database manipulation."
>
>Does the above statement mean that an EJB 1.1 container
>must remove the EJBObject, when its corresponding
>record has been "direct deleted" from the database?
>
>But how can the container remove the EJBObject if the database
>does *not* notify the container of a direct delete?
>
>Am I missing something?
>
>--
>Rubens.
>
>===========================================================================
>To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
>of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
