On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 11:21:41AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You are right. in my first email I wrote: > > " I have one question about minerva connections pooling. I'm developing > stateless ejb's that connect themselves to the database > through minerva pooling (I need make this, because my aplicattion need to > create tables inside the database )." > > Now I explain this in deep. I'm developing (my company in fact) one > "catalog" application. (indeed is more complicate,and this is only a > development's portion.) And users can create new catalog with it (a catalog > is a table's collection in my database that store information). When users > create a new catalog I create a new table in my database. Imagine users > wants catalog "news". They can create a new table choose the properties and > the items (title , author , date, etc..). > > So, perhaps I will have a catalog with two tables: news and author. When I > thought (for example ) about the "insert operation" in this catalog. I > thought to use entitys. > > I think (I'm not sure about this) that typically EJB's aplications access > database through entitys with container- manged transactions. I wanted to > use a "news-entity and one author-entity". But I can't develop one if my > table not exist in develop time. So I developed this application using > stateless session bean. I haven't taken the time to fully digest the above, I'm sorry. > So I made a "Insert session" that connect to database, this session > investigate the catalogo's structure and insert in the correct tables using > bean - manged transactions I still don't see why you want to use bean-managed transactions. > Perhaps I could made two session bean for this operation using container - > managed transactions. One "Insert catalog" session bean that invoque a > "Insert into table" session bean for each insert statement. Do you know this > is a good policy?. Really I didn't think this design in that time. Now I'm > thinking this is a better design (but I`m begginer with ejb). What do you > think? I think the whole idea sounds strange. Why do you need to go around creating new tables? Why not just have a single table that has key, value pairs? > Exuse my english. Excuse my lack of time to fully understand your problem. Toby. _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
