Armin, Thanks.
Unfortunately, would seem to be stuck. Option 1 requires separate J2EE container instances, to get around singleton issues. We are not keen on this. We would like to retain option to deploy web and ejb apps to one container. Ideally would be able to bootstrap 1..N PersistenceBrokerFactory instances and explicitly configure each, allowing that configuration to cascade down through any PersistentBroker instances and child resources created from that factory. Would have to tackle some of the singleton issues to do this I believe. Thinking it might all be mute until/unless there is Transaction Synchronization support for PersistentBroker API as well. Not sure what to do at this point. Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: Armin Waibel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:19 AM > To: OJB Users List > Subject: Re: Separating LocalTxManager and JTATxManager Use > > > Hi Andrew, > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 12:57 AM > Subject: Separating LocalTxManager and JTATxManager Use > > > Have a question trying to use OJB under a J2EE environment. If one > deploys web and ejb components under one web application, what is best > means to ensure proper TxManager is employed? The > configuration appears > to be global. > #### > Right > > Would seem that web code would want a LocalTxManager, EJB's > would want a > JTATxManager. Is this not the case? > #### > Right again. Except for the PB-api this does currently not use the > Transaction Synchronization mechanism. But I want to add this too. > > Options include: > > 1. Separate web and ejb into separate applications for deployment, and > configure each according to needs. > #### > seems for me the best solution > > 2. Create two PBFactory instances, one configured for local > and one for > JTA? > #### > Will not work because there are some more j2ee specific configuration > properties. > > 3. Implement custom JTATxFactory and make it smart enough to detect if > under JTS or not and act accordingly? > #### > see 2 / should be possible if we change the > ConnectionFactoryManagedImpl > too. > > Detecting and ensuring use of container datasource is not an issue, as > can add JdbcConnectionDescriptor at runtime. > > A related question is, does any of this matter when just using PB API > and not ODMG? One hopes it does somewhat, as don't want > commits/rollbacks going through unless container is happy. > #### > As I said above, currently the PB-api does not use > Synchronization, thus > it's different > from the ODMG-api. > > regards, > Armin > > Thanks. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
