Is this for the Java SE case, or the container-managed case?
> -Original Message-
> From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, 9 June 2008 3:11 p.m.
> To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
> Subject: Re: commit
>
> Hi,
>
> > Putting connections with active transactions into a f
Hi,
Putting connections with active transactions into a free pool is an
error,
regardless of whether the active transactions hold locks or not.
My understanding is that the issue at hand is around the behavior of
connection retention within a given transaction, not the validity of
the co
Putting connections with active transactions into a free pool is an error,
regardless of whether the active transactions hold locks or not.
Perhaps the underlying issue here has nothing to do with locks per se, but
just connection/pool management.
> -Original Message-
> From: Patrick Lins
Hi,
The JPA 1.0 spec only defines em.lock() in terms of optimistic
locking, so the behavior wrt. connections is undefined (I contend that
optimistic locking can be implemented per the spec with no connection
affinity until the very end of the transaction).
Under the new JPA 2.0 datastore
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-545?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jeremy Bauer updated OPENJPA-545:
-
Attachment: OPENJPA-545.patch
Attached is OPENJPA-545.patch, which provides type 4 UUID generato
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-478?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12603354#action_12603354
]
Milosz Tylenda commented on OPENJPA-478:
The JPA spec says:
"If there is no GROUP
