Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> Gosh, I disagree. If there is no transaction, no work should be
> saved. That's what transactions are for! We should be able to trivially
> alter the persistence manager initialization to run within the context of
> a transaction, which I think makes the most sense. For BMT session beans,
> if you don't use a transaction, you don't save the work. It's up to you,
> now, isn't it?
>
Hi,
I guess you are right.
How would you do the persistence manager fix? I tried
// Initialize the store
con.getTransactionManager().begin();
store.init();
con.getTransactionManager().commit();
in CMPPersistenceManager, but my transaction gets MARKED_ROLLBACK.
regards,
Sebastien
> Aaron
>
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Sebastien Alborini wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > By default, a java.sql.Connection uses AutoCommit=true. Minerva
> > overrides this (which is ok), and nothing is done until
> > Transaction.commit() is called.
> >
> > However, when no transaction is used, one should expect the work to be
> > done. This situation happens:
> > - for BMT session beans, if you don't use the UserTransaction.begin(),
> > .commit()
> > - for table creation by jaws (gotcha).
> >
> > Now, I am not sure how/where to fix this. Test for transactions in
> > StatementInPool.execute()? Use a boolean userAutoCommit flag?
> >
> > Aaron?
> >
> > Sebastien
> >
