OK, now I get it.

I think we can leave tx isolation as it is.

For autocommit, we need to check that we are in a tx before calling
commit() I think. We might need to also check no xa tx is in progress--
not sure.

I don't think we need to worry too much about the managed scenario,
1. people shouldn't be using autocommit.
2. jca already autocommits if no explicit tx is present

david jencks

On 2002.04.11 18:04:11 -0400 rrokytskyy wrote:
> > Autocommit does work sometimes, right? So there must be commit
> > happening sometimes with autocommit -- besides I coded it in ;-)
> > It's definitely not in a call to connection.commit(), though.
>
> No, it seems to me that we have forgotten to add commit() when we
> change the auto-commit state (same applies when we change the
> transaction isolation). I'm going to check the specs right now...
>
> Here it is... JDBC 3.0, page 62: "If the value of auto-commit is
> changed in the middle of a transaction, the current transaction is
> committed."
>
> With transaction isolation they are more tolerant: "It is recommended
> that drivers implement the setTransactionIsolation method to change
> the isolation level starting with the next transaction. Committing
> the current transaction to make the effect immediate is also a valid
> implementation."
>
> So, lets mark this issue as a bug and try to fix it. What about
> managed scenario, David?
>
> Best regards,
> Roman Rokytskyy
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Firebird-Java-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>