I _thought_ that read-only and timeout were added to implement entities that were 'read-mostly' - things that might be updated outside of the EJB container occasionially (like a product catalog, say), while keeping the caching advantage of commit option A. If I'm remembering this correctly, this would mean that the timeout would extend accross transactions - maybe overriding commit option B to some extent?
However, if I am remembering correctly, then the timeout should be more like 300 seconds than 300 milliseconds. -danch Dain Sundstrom wrote: > Does anyone remember who originally wrote the time-out code or know the > original goal? > > I am working on adding read-only to relationships, and have some questions > on how time-out is supposed to work. > > Once a read-only field is loaded in a transaction, is it supposed to be > valid for the length of the transaction, or only for the amount of time in > time-out (300 ms by default)? > > If we are in commit option A, should the time-out extend across > transactions? > > If we have a locking-strategy enabled (select-for-update is currently the > only strategy), should the time-out be ignored within a transaction (i.e., > the row is locked so why reload)? > > Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'm just guessing right now. > > -dain > > > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
