right I remember this discussion we had long time ago with rickard and dan
and I believe the container is kosher with this "no tx" thing and it is
coded in the interceptors.
So I don't think it needs to be in the verifier, or maybe as a warning
marc
|-----Original Message-----
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Juha Lindfors
|Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 6:52 AM
|To: jBoss
|Subject: RE: [jBoss-User] Re: Entities, Transactions & Commits (Oh
|my...HELP!)
|
|
|At 17:42 1.12.2000 -0800, you wrote:
|>|Is there something wrong with 'Supports'?
|>
|>Hey, is it just me but I thought "supports" wasn't a valid tag
|for entities
|>since you need to work in CMT with transaction by definition? Can
|one of the
|>bible freaks set me straight?
|
|For 'Supports' in CMT demarcation the container should handle the call as a
|'NotSupported' case if the client calls without a tx context. The section
|11.6.3 describes the handling of methods that run with "an unspecified
|transaction context". I couldn't find where the spec says that 'Supports'
|is invalid tag for CMT. There is a warning though that points out the
|transaction semantics differ depending on the context, so 'Supports' should
|be used with caution.
|
|
|> If so isnt' this in the deployer verifier?
|
|Nope. There are a couple of more things the verifier could do with
|transactions though... I need to reread this chapter.
|
|-- Juha
|
|
|
|
|--
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
|
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
