Bill Burke wrote:
>
>
> Isolation levels and locking are really orthonogal, aren't they?
The isolation level is really a hint to the DB as to how you want to lock.
>
>
>>|All in all, I think JBOSS should delegate synching and locking to the DB
>>
>>sure but my point is that can be a cache decision, if you still want to
>>implement a pessimistic cache (like we have right now) with maybe a simple
>>"read-only" feature then you can.
>>
>>
>
> I still think you should enable the ability to push the pessimistic locking
> onto the DB with CMP, or onto the developer for BMP.
Or onto the DB with both by associating the isolation level with the
connection rather then the JAWS/CMP application, as you suggest on
another thread (or is that a branch of this thread?).
> In our app, for
> instance, we have common, rarely-updated, entities that are shared alot
> between transactions. Since the current JBoss code-base locks entities into
> a transaction we are forced to use straight JDBC to avoid the unnecessary
> locks. I'd really like to avoid mixing JDBC with EJB wherever possible. I
> guess this should be put off for 3.0 though...
Yup! <POOMA>What if JBoss took the iso. level at a higher level and used
it to indicate cache behavior as well - serializable means either
pessimistic lock at the database with multiple instances/identity, or
transaction block with single instance per entity?</POOMA>
>
-danch
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
