On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 13:53, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
> I would think this is absolutely fine if the bean is read-only=false and
> just the method is read-only=true.
> If caching is the requirement then commit option A should be used. What
> do you think, Adrian?
>
I don't see any other way to
I would think this is absolutely fine if the bean is read-only=false and
just the method is read-only=true.
If caching is the requirement then commit option A should be used. What
do you think, Adrian?
Adrian Brock wrote:
The obvious fix would be to add what is done for no transaction in the
Ent
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 12:47, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
> Thanks for the test.
> As for me, it is definitely a bug and it should work with any commit option.
> read-only is currently an overloaded notion. read-only in jboss.xml
> should have been better named no-lock or like that to avoid the
> con
At 13:47 26.11.2003, you wrote:
Thanks for the test.
:) no problem.
As for me, it is definitely a bug and it should work with any commit option.
Would you fix this or somebody else? And will be thix fixed in 3.2.3 release?
Regards,
Rafal
---
Thanks for the test.
As for me, it is definitely a bug and it should work with any commit option.
read-only is currently an overloaded notion. read-only in jboss.xml
should have been better named no-lock or like that to avoid the
confusion with real read-only from jbosscmp-jdbc.xml.
Rafal Kedzio
At 11:54 26.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Is the table updated from another application? There are no UPDATEs in the
log.
I wanted you to try with read-only = false for the methods that have
read-only = true.
o.k. I tryied this and now commit option C is working.
Is this now a small "bug" o
Rafal Kedziorski wrote:
At 11:54 26.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Is the table updated from another application? There are no UPDATEs in
the log.
The table was updated from JBoss thru direct SQL.
I wanted you to try with read-only = false for the methods that have
read-only = true.
o.k
At 11:54 26.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Is the table updated from another application? There are no UPDATEs in the
log.
The table was updated from JBoss thru direct SQL.
I wanted you to try with read-only = false for the methods that have
read-only = true.
o.k. I have missunderstand you. I
Is the table updated from another application? There are no UPDATEs in
the log.
I wanted you to try with read-only = false for the methods that have
read-only = true.
Rafal Kedziorski wrote:
At 15:39 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Could you try with false?
We don't try this, cause by
At 15:39 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Could you try with false?
We don't try this, cause by default all entity beans are not read-only. But
we try this. We user for all our entity beans this container configuration:
Standard CMP 2.x EntityBean. And we changed commit option (line 227,
sta
Yes.
Rafal Kedziorski wrote:
At 15:39 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Could you try with false?
By default is this false.
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?
At 15:39 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Could you try with false?
By default is this false.
Rafal Kedziorski wrote:
hi,
At 14:28 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Can you see that container loads data from the database while performing
3.? Other than primary key.
We've checked this.
We
At 15:24 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
With commit option C instances are not cached between transactions.
I know, but we have other experiences. See my other mail.
Rafal Kedziorski wrote:
At 14:28 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Can you see that container loads data from the databas
Could you try with false?
Rafal Kedziorski wrote:
hi,
At 14:28 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Can you see that container loads data from the database while
performing 3.? Other than primary key.
We've checked this.
We call in the first transaction out business method, which get's data
With commit option C instances are not cached between transactions.
Rafal Kedziorski wrote:
At 14:28 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Can you see that container loads data from the database while
performing 3.? Other than primary key.
We have to check this.
It's possible to switch off ca
hi,
At 14:28 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Can you see that container loads data from the database while performing
3.? Other than primary key.
We've checked this.
We call in the first transaction out business method, which get's data from
folder table by primary key. In the logfile from
At 14:28 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Can you see that container loads data from the database while performing
3.? Other than primary key.
We have to check this.
It's possible to switch off caching?
Rafal Kedziorski wrote:
At 13:50 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Are 1. and 3. pef
Can you see that container loads data from the database while performing
3.? Other than primary key.
Rafal Kedziorski wrote:
At 13:50 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Are 1. and 3. peformed in the same transaction? If so, this is the
expected behaviour.
no. 1. is one transaction, 2. is o
At 13:50 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Are 1. and 3. peformed in the same transaction? If so, this is the
expected behaviour.
no. 1. is one transaction, 2. is one transaction and 3. is one transaction.
Rafal Kedziorski wrote:
At 12:24 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Why do you think
Are 1. and 3. peformed in the same transaction? If so, this is the
expected behaviour.
Rafal Kedziorski wrote:
At 12:24 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Why do you think so?
Cause we can see it. We have a folder table. We don't want that JBoss is
caching entities from this table, cause w
At 12:24 25.11.2003, Alexey Loubyansky wrote:
Why do you think so?
Cause we can see it. We have a folder table. We don't want that JBoss is
caching entities from this table, cause we use SQL to make some updates in
this table.
Out container-configuration looks so:
S
Why do you think so?
Rafal Kedziorski wrote:
hi,
it's possible to switch off caching in Entity Beans? We user Commit
Option C, but JBoss is caching the entities.
Regards,
Rafal
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
hi,
it's possible to switch off caching in Entity Beans? We user Commit Option
C, but JBoss is caching the entities.
Regards,
Rafal
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more producti
23 matches
Mail list logo
