Subject | Re: [IB-Java] Unmanaged scenario |
---|---|
Author | David Jencks |
Post date | 2001-11-10T21:26:36Z |
There are many things in jdbc 2.0....
I haven't looked too much lately at the jca specs, final version, but I
think I saw something indicating that we need different autocommit support
than we have now. I _think_ I read that connections should be "autocommit"
unless a transaction is explicitly started, either through LocalTransaction
or the XAResource. When we implement this, the unmanaged scenario will
give autocommit = true" connections automatically unless you do something
else (set autocommit = false or use LocalTransaction).
The way I think about it, connections are always managed by a
ConnectionManager. The difference between the managed and unmanaged
scenarios is that in the managedd scenario, the ConnectionManager is
supplied by the app server, and controls transactions and security, (and
pooling), whereas in the unmanaged scenario the ConnectionManager may well
be provided by the connector (e.g. FBStandAloneConnectionManager) and it
provides default security and pooling, and pretty much ignores the
transactions. So, there are no "unmanaged connections", its just that the
management may be pretty minimal;-)
Would the autocommit support outlined above be pretty much what you want?
david jencks
I haven't looked too much lately at the jca specs, final version, but I
think I saw something indicating that we need different autocommit support
than we have now. I _think_ I read that connections should be "autocommit"
unless a transaction is explicitly started, either through LocalTransaction
or the XAResource. When we implement this, the unmanaged scenario will
give autocommit = true" connections automatically unless you do something
else (set autocommit = false or use LocalTransaction).
The way I think about it, connections are always managed by a
ConnectionManager. The difference between the managed and unmanaged
scenarios is that in the managedd scenario, the ConnectionManager is
supplied by the app server, and controls transactions and security, (and
pooling), whereas in the unmanaged scenario the ConnectionManager may well
be provided by the connector (e.g. FBStandAloneConnectionManager) and it
provides default security and pooling, and pretty much ignores the
transactions. So, there are no "unmanaged connections", its just that the
management may be pretty minimal;-)
Would the autocommit support outlined above be pretty much what you want?
david jencks
On 2001.11.10 15:24:33 -0500 Massimo Ferrari wrote:
> David, I would like to have a clarification:
> in an unmanaged scenario, the ConnectionManager should be provided by the
> Resource Adapter.
> As far as I understand the JCA specifications, in that scenario the JDBC
> driver should behave like a normal JDBC2.0 driver.
> But, e.g. the specifications say that a Connection should have as default
> autocommit set to false. This is only the case if I get a connection
> through
> the Driver.connect method (which creates an unmanaged connection), but
> not
> the case if I get it through DataSource.getConnection() (which gets a
> managed connection from the FBStandAloneConnectionManager).
> Wouldn't it be better to get connections (in an unmanaged scenario) only
> through the FBStandAloneConnectionManager, which should then allocate
> just
> unmanaged connections?
> Or am I completely wrong?
> I hope I could explain what I think... :)
> Massimo
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> IB-Java-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>