Dan,
I don't see any reason that local bean methods would always need to execute in a
transaction. For example, finding the main phone number for a company. Is there
any harm in calling this without a transaction if I don't intend to update the
number?
--Victor
Daniel OConnor wrote:
> On 8 May 01, at 10:37, Richard Monson-Haefel wrote:
>
> > The specification should require that Local interfaces use only the
> > "Supports" transaction attribute. The Supports Tx attribute simply
> > propagates the callers (always another bean for local calls)
> > transaction. This eliminates the overhead of intercepting the call for
> > the purpose of evaluating the Tx context according to the Tx attribute.
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I'm in favor of eliminating overhead from the container's checking of
> transaction and security contexts, but I don't think "Supports" is
> appropriate for EJB 2.0 CMP entity beans with local component
> interfaces. These must always execute within a transaction (see
> e.g. EJB 2.0 PFD2 17.4.1), which "Supports" would not ensure.
>
> -Dan
>
> ===========================================================================
> 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".
===========================================================================
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".
