as I wrap up the stuff, sanity check
bean a and bean b
a starts transaction and calls b.remove() and then rolls back
b is still there in cache right?
marcf
_
Marc Fleury, Ph.D
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
___
. Sourceforge. Net
Subject: [JBoss-dev] remove transactional
as I wrap up the stuff, sanity check
bean a and bean b
a starts transaction and calls b.remove() and then rolls back
b is still there in cache right?
marcf
_
Marc Fleury, Ph.D
[EMAIL PROTECTED
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
fleury
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 2:57 PM
To: Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net
Subject: [JBoss-dev] remove transactional
as I wrap up the stuff, sanity check
bean a and bean b
a starts transaction and calls b.remove
)) but for the stateful...?
marcf
|
|Bill
|
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
| fleury
| Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 2:57 PM
| To: Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net
| Subject: [JBoss-dev] remove transactional
|
|
| as I wrap up the stuff
fleury
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 3:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] remove transactional
|Nope, with the old code, B would be removed from the cache when
b.remove()
|was called even if it was invoked from within a transaction. Also, all
I know, I am reading the old
3:35 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] remove transactional
|
|
|I agree with Bill - removing everything involved in the rolled-back
|transaction from the cache is a must.
|
|-danch
|
|Bill Burke wrote:
|
| Nope, with the old code, B would be removed from the cache when
|b.remove
of a rollback. Otherwise you may have corrupted data.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
fleury
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 2:57 PM
To: Jboss-Development@Lists. Sourceforge. Net
Subject: [JBoss-dev] remove
. Net
| | Subject: [JBoss-dev] remove transactional
| |
| |
| | as I wrap up the stuff, sanity check
| |
| | bean a and bean b
| |
| | a starts transaction and calls b.remove() and then rolls back
| |
| | b is still there in cache right?
| |
| | marcf
| |
| | _
| | Marc Fleury, Ph.D
fleury
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 3:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] remove transactional
fair enough, by popular demand
remove() is not a transactional operation then,
you call it? the stateful bean is gone, gone I tell you!
marcf
|-Original Message-
|From
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
fleury
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 4:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] remove transactional
|Just looked at the spec. You can't remove a Stateful session
bean
Yes, remove is not transactional, go ahead and remove the bean
from the cache. But I disagree with the following:
|I agree with Bill - removing everything involved in the rolled-back
|transaction from the cache is a must.
|
|-danch
|
|Bill Burke wrote:
|
| Nope, with the old code, B
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] remove transactional
|
|
|chill pill bill...
|
|there is more fire coming, although when we volley back and forth like this
|you must account for delivery lag,
|
|so everyone take a chill pill bill for 15 mins, when you come back we are
|all
On 3 Jul 01, at 16:08, marc fleury wrote:
Hi Marc,
I can't take a chill pill as I am signing off for several hours and
possibly the evening, to go over my sister's house for dinner. #1 is
almost correct: you can call remove on a transactional stateful
session bean--you just can't do it when
SessionSynchronization.
Regards,
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marc
fleury
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 4:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] remove transactional
so
fifteen minute time lapse
is the create the same? cannot
, July 03, 2001 4:52 PM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] remove transactional
|
|
| so
|
| fifteen minute time lapse
|
| is the create the same? cannot be transactional??? or just remove?
|
| having problems with the new code as we speak
|
| marcf
|
| |-Original Message
15 matches
Mail list logo
