> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of danch
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 6:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] High load...
>
>
> marc fleury wrote:
>
> > |But if they're in the same transaction, they must use the same
> isolation
> > |level - per our discussion on the database doing an implicite commit
> > |when you try to change levels. I don't think it makes logical sense to
> > |talk about having two different transaction isolation levels
> in the same
> > |transaction, either - either the transaction is serializable or the
> > |transaction is read-committed.
> >
> > why not?????????????
> >
> > the STATE is read-committed or not, meaning that a "theoretical" level I
> > have no problem saying that a transaction can encompass beans that are
> > read-only (most of them, like a calendar and a whachamakalit
> list of stuff
> > (menu) from where you select your products taht doesn't change
> (catalog?))
> > but the "order" would of course be read write. For design
> reasons I might
> > want to use the global transaction to emcompass the records and have
> > different isolations on their state.
> >
> > You don't agree?
> >
> > marcf
>
> I'm thinking of the isolation level as an immutable part of the
> transaction - partly because this is how the databases implement it (at
> least as far as JDBC goes).
>
> Sure, it would be useful to be able to specify different levels per
> bean, but given the apparent constraints that the databases are putting
> us under, implementing it against the database isn't feasable.
>
Just use a freakin' different connection pool for different beans and there
is no freakin' database constraint.
Bill
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
