On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Jean-Baptiste BRIAUD -- Novlog <
j-b.bri...@novlog.com> wrote:
> I would add some (obvious ? if yes, sorry) things :
>
> Thanks for the tips, I think I've got these issues covered.
> 1. Ensure connection is at last closed or put back in the pool.
>
Yes, all thre
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
> You want your EM query to pick up the uncommitted changes on
> your JDBC connection.
Yes, and I'm doing this simply by using the same connection. Both the JDBC
connection and the EM are available on a ThreadLocal variable. The EM gets
its
I would add some (obvious ? if yes, sorry) things :
0. Yes, you're playing with fire, but that's really fun and very powerful as
long as you don't start a forest fire :-)
1. Ensure connection is at last closed or put back in the pool.
2. Test with and without a pool (or adjust value on pool) to f
Hi Daryl,
You might be playing with fire, but if nobody gets hurt... :-) Seriously,
as I was reading through your scenario, my first thought was to use Read
Uncommitted isolation level. Not sure how this might affect your other
database transactions, but this seems to be the scenario you are
des
