This is a limitation of WebLogic 5.1. It is one of the few app servers
that doesn't act as a transaction manager across databases. A
connection will be outside of the scope of the transaction if the pool
is declared to be a
weblogic.jdbc.DataSource instead of a weblogic.jdbc.TXDataSource inside
the weblogic.properties file. For example, the following entry in the
properties file would declare a pool to be used with transactions
weblogic.jdbc.TXDataSource.weblogic.jdbc.jts.oraclePool=oraclePool
whereas
weblogic.jdbc.DataSource.weblogic.jdbc.jts.oraclePool=oraclePool
would declare a pool to be used outside of transactions. All of the
above information is available in the weblogic documentation at
http://www.weblogic.com/docs51/intro/intro_jdbc.html
If you need updates in both databases to be treated as an atomic
transaction, then I suggest you get another app server or look at Ed
Roman's slides from JavaOne on using the SessionSynchronization
interface to implement a poor man's 2 phase commit. They are available
at www.theserverside.com
TK
Parikshitp wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> I tried creating 2 connections to a single/diff db, in a single =
> transaction, but in different beans. But the server throws an error =
> saying, cannot create another connection in the same transaction. Is it =
> specified in the EJB spec so?=20
> Or is it a limitation of WebLogic Server I'm using??
> Thanks
> Parikshit
>
> ===========================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
> of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
