Thanks very much for the reply!

I can and will do the three items suggested (i.e. they all make sense
based on other discussions I've seen in the list).  I still have a
question
about the usage of PersistenceBroker in a managed environment.  
(These may be stupid questions, but here goes...)

When I get a PersistenceBroker instance from the
PersistenceBrokerFactory,
how do I know that instance (and hence database connection associated
with
that instance) is associated with the "current" container managed
transaction?  It was obvious how this was happening with the J2EE
PersistenceBroker/Factory
classes.

Suppose I have three Session beans which call each other.  Each method
gets a PersistenceBroker from the factory, performs persistent
operations
and does a close() on the broker.  Am I assured that when the brokers
get their database connection from the container (via a JNDI lookup on
some DataSource), that it will be the same connection associated with
the
"current" JTA transaction?

Thanks again for the help.

Dave
--

btw:  I've been really impressed with the OJB project, both in its
technology and in the very active and helpful community.  Castor was the
first Java open source O/R that I had heard of, but I turned to OJB when
I saw how nice the design was and how much more active the community
was.  Congrats and thanks to all! 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Armin Waibel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 12:40 PM
> To: OJB Users List
> Subject: Re: PB API transaction manager support in latest OJB???
> 
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> yes we have removed the
> 
> PersistenceBrokerFactoryJ2EEImpl.java
> PersistenceBrokerJ2EEImpl.java
> 
> stuff. But it's possible to use the PB api in a managed 
> environment when
> take account of the following things:
> - only use datasources from the managed environment
> - use 
> ObjectCacheClass=org.apache.ojb.broker.cache.ObjectCacheEmptyImpl
> in OJB.properties
> - use ConnectionFactoryClass=
> org.apache.ojb.broker.accesslayer.ConnectionFactoryPassThroughImpl
> 
> In the CVS head there are some client test cases using PB-api
> within SessionBeans, all seems to work fine (jboss 3.0.3).
> The callback via Synchronization interface was not necessary
> in that case (there is nothing to do in the beforeCommit/afterCommit
> methods).
> 
> Hope you would agree, that this was a acceptable interim solution
> till the OTM/JCA stuff will work.
> 
> If you run into trouble, please let me know.
> 
> regards,
> Armin
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 5:22 PM
> Subject: PB API transaction manager support in latest OJB???
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if this question has been answered already (couldn't find
> the answer in the archives...),
> so here goes...
> 
> I've been looking to upgrade to latest OJB version (I'm currently
> running with OJB-0.9.4) and
> I'm wonding when/if transaction manager support will be added back to
> the PB API.  What I'm
> referring to is the
> 
> PersistenceBrokerFactoryJ2EEImpl.java
> PersistenceBrokerJ2EEImpl.java
> 
> classes (and supporting classes...).  I have a persistence layer that
> uses the PB-API exclusively (no ODMG) and this was 
> functionality that I
> believe is necessary for proper behavior in a "managed" environment.
> 
> It seems that J2EE transaction management support was added 
> to the ODMG
> layer and I think I
> saw a discussion that suggested that similar support was to 
> be put back
> into the PB-API.
> 
> Is this functionality going to be put back into OJB PB-API?
> 
> Is it already there and I'm completely missing something?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave
> --
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to