On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:24 PM Steinar Dragsnes <[email protected]> wrote:
> I didn’t think I patched the current transaction, I thought I created a > new inner transaction with a different/derived config. > I don't think it will work this way. The TransactionProvider SPI should be in control of your entire set of nested transactions. The way your code looks right now, it may well be that the outer and inner transaction providers don't "communicate" with each other. It might as well work - I don't know your implementation of the TransactionProvider, but it does look like something the next developer might easily get wrong when modifying the code. > So if I do a config.derive before starting the transaction then I am fine? > That's what I would have done, yes. > The main problem as I can see it right now is that the > TransactionDefinition is hardcoded in the SpringTransactionProvider. For > most things that is fine but this is a special case where I must use a > different transaction isolation. > Would you mind sharing your SpringTransactionProvider? Thanks, Lukas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
