The spec says that NOT_SUPPORTED is an optional thing for entities. Frankly, I'm glad that the new stuff doesn't support it - really the bizarre thing is doing anything with a dirty entity outside of a transaction. It means that somebody is bringing in a lot of overhead and not making use of any of it.
I think that if you're going to allow this nonsense, though, that storing does follow the principal of least astonishment by extending the equally bletcherous notion of JDBC 'auto-commit'. standard consultant disclaimer: "Or not." -danch 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
