Uhm... I am checking EJB 2.0 spec, topic 17, in particular 17.3.1, 17.6.1 -
17.6.5
Bean managed tx is when the tx can be started or no which is the our case
:-)
MEJB is a session stateless and so the eventually inner tx must terminate
before the metod completation (our case)
When we have "Bean managed tx" the container must suspend the client tx
association and now MEJB can do what it wants :-) (our case)
I think that "bean managed" is better because is more "future" portable (TM)
:-)))
Claudio
PS: I can retest jboss with MEJB with tx container managed not supported,
but I think that jboss works equally
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Jencks [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 6:26 PM
> To: Vesco Claudio
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] MEJB transactions (invoke deploy)
>
> I think this is inappropriate use of "bean managed transactions". As far
> as
> I know the MEJB is not in fact starting any transactions, and all its
> operations are expected to be not in a transaction. This is what
> NotSupported is for. Bean managed tx is for when your bean actually needs
> to start transactions itself. Here, as far as I can tell, the MEJB needs
> there to be NO tx, it does not have any intention of starting one itself.
> If it did, it would have failed long ago when it tried to with cmt on.
>
> david jencks
>
> On 2002.03.22 12:11:22 -0500 Vesco Claudio wrote:
> > Why not set tx attribute to "Bean" managed? No "Container" NotSupported
> >
> > I think that the inner container operations can do everything and so the
> > transactions must be "bean" managed.
> >
> > I have tested jboss with this transaction demarcation ("Bean") and I
> > don't
> > have problems.
> >
> > If there is not problems I'll commit the patch...
> >
> > Claudio
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Jencks [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 5:55 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] MEJB transactions (invoke deploy)
> > >
> > > I think the tx attributes on MEJB need to be NOT SUPPORTED
> > >
> > > I think what is happening is that MEJB is creating a tx context which
> > is
> > > getting propagated through the deployment system (same thread).
> > Normally
> > > deployment does not include setting a tx context.
> > >
> > > Either that or we make deployment explicitly a transactional operation
> > --
> > > a
> > > good idea but not for today perhaps.
> > >
> > > david jencks
> > >
> > > On 2002.03.22 10:14:17 -0500 marc fleury wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > |-----Original Message-----
> > > > |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > > Vesco
> > > > |Claudio
> > > > |Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 6:52 AM
> > > > |To: 'marc fleury'
> > > > |Cc: Jboss Dev (Posta elettronica)
> > > > |Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] MEJB transactions (invoke deploy)
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > |Ehm...
> > > > |
> > > > |when I wrote, I think to the current jboss 3.0 rabbit hole HEAD
> CVS.
> > > > |
> > > > |CMP -> new CMP 2.0
> > > >
> > > > 77 is just a proxy to the JMX base, THERE SHOULD NOT BE PERSISTENCE.
> > > >
> > > > Try to fix the configuration to put in a "fake" CMP engine that just
> > > does
> > > > nothing.
> > > >
> > > > In fact is it an entity at all? andreas?
> > > >
> > > > marcf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
