Why can't a transaction manage different resources and each of those
resources use a different transaction-isolation level? What's wrong with
that?
Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David
> Jencks
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 5:38 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] High load...
>
>
> Hi,
>
> since you can't change the transaction isolation after you start the
> transaction, the isolation is determined by the outermost isolation
> specifier.
>
> david jencks
>
> On 2001.06.26 16:47:16 -0400 danch (Dan Christopherson) wrote:
> > David Jencks wrote:
> > Read on - the problem with this occured to a few of us already.
> Although
> > none of us mentioned putting it in the container-transaction - that's
> > interesting. But what if a method at iso 'read-uncommitted' calls a
> > method in an iso 'serializable' transaction?
> >
> > thanks,
> > danch
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Forgive me if I am talking nonsense, but doesn't it only make sense to
> > have
> > > transaction isolation per transaction???? I very much doubt you will
> > find
> > > a db that can support several transaction isolation levels within one
> > > transaction. I can't quite figure out what it would mean, either. So
> > I
> > > say, put it with the transaction requirements for methods - Requires,
> > > Requires New, etc. Then you can set the isolation each time you start
> > a
> > > new transaction, based on this specification.
> > >
> > > david jencks
> > >
> > > On 2001.06.26 14:48:00 -0400 Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> > >
> > >>>|I added transaction isolation to the new cmp plugin. You can set it
> > by
> > >>>|adding the <transaction-isolation> element after the datasource
> > >>>
> > >>element.
> > >>
> > >>>|Valid levels are:
> > >>>| transaction-none
> > >>>| transaction-read-committed
> > >>>| transaction-read-uncommitted
> > >>>| transaction-repeatable-read
> > >>>| transaction-serializable
> > >>>|
> > >>>|Give me 10 minutes and I'll add it to JAWS...
> > >>>
> > >>>ok but these will be leveraged by new caches in JBoss 3.0
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>so I would imagine that each application can set its own datasource
> > >>>isolation level, (different kinds of bean). So it IS user
> > configurable
> > >>>right???
> > >>>
> > >>>Also how does it play with the datasources, if the datasource is
> > shared
> > >>>across applications and different tables support different locking
> > >>>
> > >>policies
> > >>
> > >>>(say one table is RO the other RW) can the driver support sequential
> > >>>"setIsolationLevel" that only applies to the record and or table
> > >>>
> > >>touched?
> > >>
> > >>>marcf
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>Right now this the jaws and jbosscmp code only support datasource per
> > >>application. When we implement datasource per bean, we can have
> > >>isolation
> > >>level per bean. This leads to the intresting situation with EJB-QL
> > >>queries
> > >>that thouch multiput beans. May be we need to specify an isolation
> > lever
> > >>for
> > >>each query. Havn't thought about it much. Right now you can only set
> > it
> > >>for the entire ejb-jar.
> > >>
> > >>Just tell me when you get the cache stuff figgured out and I
> can update
> > >>jaws
> > >>and jbosscmp to support what ever you want.
> > >>
> > >>-dain
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Jboss-development mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jboss-development mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
