Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Updates to OEJB 2.2 and TranQL 1.4
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:02:29 +0300
Message-ID: <3D8E84095C6A524A985B787423094E407928D3@mssmsx411>
Thread-Topic: Updates to OEJB 2.2 and TranQL 1.4
Thread-Index: AccHfzYM99MnPJ/bQE+8O3vVA98fVgFPeB4A
From: "Udovichenko, Nellya" <nellya.udovichenko@intel.com>
To: <dev@geronimo.apache.org>

Oh, by the way, doesn't this change address the transaction isolation
level
problem in TranQL/OpenEJB (GERONIMO-2128)?

Thanks,=20
Nellya Udovichenko.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Hogstrom [mailto:matt@hogstrom.org]=20
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 2:55 AM
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org; openejb-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Updates to OEJB 2.2 and TranQL 1.4

I have updated TranQL 1.4 and Open EJB 2.2 to support specification =20
of a Select-For-Update clause in the openejb-jar.xsd when deploying =20
CMP EJBs.  I have published new SNAPSHOTs of both projects so in a =20
perfect world there should be no pain :)

I'll be stress testing DayTrader tonight to confirm that we can run =20
an EJB workload under stress.  If no changes are made then the =20
current SQL syntax is generated and you'll notice no difference.  If =20
you want you can add a <select-for-update>true</select-for-update> =20
element to the Entity element in your openejb-jar.

I'll post some results when I finish testing.

Cheers.


Matt Hogstrom
matt@hogstrom.org