Nope. EJB's transaction model is "flat".
It occurs to me, why doesn't the session bean query the entity bean instead
of querying the underlying table directly? That way the entity bean can
answer from its cached state instead of relying on the underlying table as
the communication mechanism!
-Chris.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gabriel Lawrence [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 1999 1:47 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: No checkpoint of EJB transactions?
>
> Ahhh... Ok, so if I do the TX_REQUIRES_NEW attribute, if that sub
> transaction
> commits, but the original transaction fails, does this sub transaction get
> rolledback?
>
> thanx,
> -gabe
>
> Chris Raber wrote:
>
> > You are correct, since you haven't commited yet, the ejbStore call is
> still
> > pending for the entity bean...
> >
> > Sounds like you need your entity bean to execute in its own transaction.
> You
> > could force this by having its transaction mode be TX REQUIRES NEW
> >
> > -Chris. << File: Card for Gabriel Lawrence >>
===========================================================================
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".
