db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Deepa Remesh <drem...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Question about setTransactionIsolation in network client driver
Date Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:35:15 GMT
Thanks all for your responses.

The behaviour of Derby client driver does not seem right to me too.
Also, it is different from embedded driver. I will open a JIRA issue

I agree this is a corner case. It is unlikely for an application to
have the code I mentioned in my mail. If autocommit is set to false,
the application will be doing a commit/rollback at the end and then we
would not see this exception.


On 10/21/05, Lance J. Andersen <Lance.Andersen@sun.com> wrote:
>  The JDBC javadocs indicate the following
>  Note: If this method is called during a transaction, the result is
> implementation-defined.
>  Unfortunately many of the corner-cases such as this will vary from vendor
> to vendor so the best thing to do is avoid this type of behavior in your
> apps if you are concerned about portability.
>  We have tried where we can in JDBC 4 to clarify issues such as this to at
> least let you know if your milage may vary and if it hurts, dont do it ;-)
>  Andreas Korneliussen wrote:
> Roy's email was meant to be sent to me personally to correct my answer.
>  He says that according to the SQL spec, it is not allowed to set
> transaction isolation inside a transaction, however setting transaction
> isolation should not open a transaction either.
>  My answer was based on the "JDBC API Tutorial and Reference, Third
> Edition".
>  -- Andreas
> Nope. Det er ikke tillatt å sette transaction isolation inne i en
> transaksjon, men det å sette transaction isolation skal heller ikke åpne en
> transaksjon...
>  Roy

View raw message