Cameron, David A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My gut says to fix it for the scenario and not remove > something that may have a purpose. What I would do is add a check to > verify that the TransactionImpl is not in STATUS_NO_TRANSACTION status before > trying to roll it back. It has other, similar checks already. Just > not that one.
Yes, this is something I came across as well. InheritableTransactionContext.rollbackAndThrow() has a check for STATUS_NO_TRANSACTION for the rollback() on the TransactionManager, but not for the second rollback() directly on the Transaction instance. Jörg
