Aha! :-)
This would explain why I am getting locking even when I'm not expecting
it.
Thanks guys
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 17:37, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
> The read-only is applied to the specific bean/method as defined in the
> DDs. No inheritance rules.
--
Peter Beck BEng (hons) MIEE GIinstIT -
Pete Beck wrote:
Yep, we've walked that same path too.
Unfortunately there are few long running transactions which need write
access and these seem to screw things up.
We also have long running transactions, calling potentially external
applications from our workflow app, but we have chosen to re
no, unless you have a distributed cache (am I not wrong on that ?)
julien
> Hi all,
> I have just been reading through the docs about using optimistic
> locking.
>
> According to the docs, to use optimistic locking, you must also use the
> "instance per transaction" policy.
>
> However, the doc
The read-only is applied to the specific bean/method as defined in the
DDs. No inheritance rules.
Pete Beck wrote:
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 11:26, Kevin Conner wrote:
We stuck with the pessimistic locking and enabled read-only methods.
The CMP engine grabs the lock for the duration of the method
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 11:26, Kevin Conner wrote:
> We stuck with the pessimistic locking and enabled read-only methods.
> The CMP engine grabs the lock for the duration of the method but
> releases it afterwards.
>
> Kev
>
> BTW We are on a modified version of 3.0.2 but I think it still
Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Let's get the world involved.
Is this an invite? :-)
My main interest in optimistic locking is to get rid of some deadlock
problems we have experienced.
We stuck with the pessimistic locking and enabled read-only methods.
The CMP engine grabs the lock for the duration of
Let's get the world involved.
Pete Beck wrote:
Thanks Alex.
My main interest in optimistic locking is to get rid of some deadlock
problems we have experienced.
But I think that using instance per transaction by itself will have the
same effect anyway?
Not really. This sounds a bit weird but you c
Pete Beck wrote:
Hi all,
I have just been reading through the docs about using optimistic
locking.
According to the docs, to use optimistic locking, you must also use the
"instance per transaction" policy.
However, the docs also state that you cannot use commit option "A" with
instance per transac
Hi all,
I have just been reading through the docs about using optimistic
locking.
According to the docs, to use optimistic locking, you must also use the
"instance per transaction" policy.
However, the docs also state that you cannot use commit option "A" with
instance per transaction.
Therefore
