Looking at his code and understanding from the way he expected the code to behave, I think it's the first. That's why I suggest him to remove the transaction code in BanHandler.Handle(Ban). He should only get active ISession there and let the outer ITransaction handles the transaction (in the QueryManager/Windows Service-level exposed API).
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Ramon Smits <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Maximilian Raditya <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I couldn't agree more then. Well, I personally don't use it, as I use >> Castle NHibernate Integration for resolving it. It's just since the OP has >> already used it, I choose to continue it from what he's done. >> > > True, that is why the OP should decide whether the banhandler is part of > the overal uow or it is not. If it is the first, the he should remove the > transaction management in the ban handler to rely on the overal transaction > or keep it seperate and let it create its own nhibernate session. > > Ramon > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "nhusers" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en. > -- Regards, Maximilian Haru Raditya -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.
