|
![]() |
Miki<br /> <br />SCJP 1.4, SCBCD 1.3
Miki<br /> <br />SCJP 1.4, SCBCD 1.3
Thanks for your response, but I am asking about the level of locking. If an entity bean instance holds a state of a particular record in the table, the whole record will be locked or just a field of a record being locked? For database, normally the whole record will be locked. For EJB, if the whole entity bean instance is being locked, others clients who want to access the bean state will have to wait.
SCJP 1.4, SCWCD 1.3, SCBCD 1.3
Miki<br /> <br />SCJP 1.4, SCBCD 1.3
SCJP 1.4, SCWCD 1.3, SCBCD 1.3
SCJP 1.4, SCWCD 1.3, SCBCD 1.3
Originally posted by Roger Chung-Wee:
This is safe because concurrency problems will be prevented by the DB row locking. This also means that it is the transaction isolation level that dictates the level of concurrency protection, not the EJB container.
I get the feeling that the default isolation level for many containers is TRANSACTION_READ_COMMITTED, can anyone confirm this.
SCJP 1.4, SCWCD 1.3, SCBCD 1.3
Can you smell this for me? I think this tiny ad smells like blueberry pie!
Clean our rivers and oceans from home
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paulwheaton/willow-feeders
|