> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Georg
> Rehfeld
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 8:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] High load...
>
>
> Hi
>
> who ever it was, said:
> > > 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.
> > >
>
> Bill Burke answered:
> > Just use a freakin' different connection pool for different beans and
> there
> > is no freakin' database constraint.
>
> That would cause a problem with transactions and not XA compliant
> JDBC drivers, wouldn't it? The reason why JBoss pool pickes a
> connection from the pool based on the TX (reuses a connection
> with a TX when another connection is requested in the same TX)
> is, because current drivers often have a one to one correspondence
> between connection and transaction (as of comments in JBoss pool).
>
2 entity beans. 2 connection pools(but same database), each connection pool
is configured to use a certain JDBC isolation level. Entity 1 is attach to
pool 1, Entity 2 is attached to pool 2.
1. Start JBoss transaction
2. Access Entity1. A connection is grabbed from pool 1,
connection1.setIsolation(blah blah),
3. access entity2. A connection is created from pool 2,
connection2.setIsolation(blah blah)
4. End JBoss transaction. commit is called on connection 1 and connection
2.
This should work, shouldn't it?
Regards,
Bill
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
