Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Key: OPENJPA-268
Type: Sub-task Sub-task
Status: Closed Closed
Resolution: Duplicate
Priority: Major Major
Assignee: Michael Dick
Reporter: Kevin Sutter
Votes: 0
Watchers: 0
Operations

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.
OpenJPA
OPENJPA-61

Provide pluggable "out of transaction" work requests

Created: 27/Jun/07 01:33 PM   Updated: 07/Aug/07 06:28 PM
Return to search
Component/s: kernel
Affects Version/s: 1.0.0
Fix Version/s: None

Time Tracking:
Not Specified

Resolution Date: 07/Aug/07 06:27 PM


 Description  « Hide
From the parent Issue (OPENJPA-61)...

"I don't think that we want this to necessarily be the default ManagedRuntime implementation, since the TSR does not provide any support for executing work in a separate transaction. This behavior is required for sequence maintenance in some scenarios.

Maybe we should change our ManagedRuntime interface to get rid of the begin() / commit() etc. APIs, and add a new interface for executing a Runnable in a different transaction. This would allow us to use the TSR ManagedRuntime for general use, and just plug in different ways of performing out-of-transaction work."

Since the original OPENJPA-61 Issue resolved the first problem with a missing TSR implementation, I created this new sub-task for the "out of transaction" work requests.

 All   Comments   Work Log   Change History   Subversion Commits      Sort Order: Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Craig Russell added a comment - 27/Jun/07 06:08 PM
> ...add a new interface for executing a Runnable in a different transaction. This would allow us to use the TSR ManagedRuntime for general use, and just plug in different ways of performing out-of-transaction work."

I think this is a good direction to go, although I'm not sure that you need a different transaction. You might be able to use the non-transactional connection to perform "out of transaction" requests like sequence management, but you shouldn't need a "different transaction" just a "non-transaction".

Are there cases where we need "transactional" semantics but "not the transaction currently bound" to the Broker?

Patrick Linskey added a comment - 27/Jun/07 06:25 PM
> Are there cases where we need "transactional" semantics but
> "not the transaction currently bound" to the Broker?

If a non-transactional data source is not provided, then we need this for sequence table updates sometimes.

Reducing the number of required data sources is nice from an ease-of-use standpoint.

Kevin Sutter added a comment - 07/Aug/07 06:27 PM
This is a duplicate of OPENJPA-159.