The jca spec says any operations done outside a managed transaction (i.e one controlled by the tx manager) should be autocommit. So, presumably they envisage writes being done outside tx, such as those you speak of.
The new local wrapper has this behavior, the xa one still doesn't. david jencks On 2002.04.29 16:23:50 -0400 marc fleury wrote: > I know, i agree, but most don't :( > > the claim (supposedly from the spec) is that the absence of a transaction > triggers a storage. > > If you ask it makes no sense > > marcf > > PS: can you get to compile on JDK1.4? > > > |-----Original Message----- > |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill > |Burke > |Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:58 PM > |To: Jboss-Dev > |Subject: [JBoss-dev] why storeEntity on a NOT_SUPPORTED method? > | > | > |Why are we storing a dirty entity when the method call is not called > within > |the context of a transaction (NOT_SUPPORTED, NEVER, etc...)? Seems kind > of > |bizarre. > | > |Bill > | > | > |_______________________________________________ > |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
