right - ok thats cool then, I was getting worried, but thats fine.
So a "best practice" is to let jackrabbit control the JDBC connections it uses? I am *guessing* this is due to the fact that the different connections may be to disparate databases - or some persistence managers using the filesystem itself - and jackrabbit tries to co-ordinate this as part of a JTA transaction? Michael. On 2/22/07, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, On 2/22/07, Michael Neale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephan - isn't this needed so JCR transactions can participate in a wide > JTA transaction? > I find the suggestion otherwise quite alarming ! Jackrabbit explicitly manages it's part of a distributed transaction, and having the underlying database connection externally managed actually breaks the transaction support within Jackrabbit. BR, Jukka Zitting
