jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Neale" <michael.ne...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Persistence Manager in Production Environment
Date Fri, 23 Feb 2007 03:16:46 GMT
right - ok thats cool then, I was getting worried, but thats fine.

So a "best practice" is to let jackrabbit control the JDBC connections it
uses?

I am *guessing* this is due to the fact that the different connections may
be to disparate databases - or some persistence managers using the
filesystem itself - and jackrabbit tries to co-ordinate this as part of a
JTA transaction?

Michael.

On 2/22/07, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2/22/07, Michael Neale <michael.neale@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Stephan - isn't this needed so JCR transactions can participate in a
> wide
> > JTA transaction?
> > I find the suggestion otherwise quite alarming !
>
> Jackrabbit explicitly manages it's part of a distributed transaction,
> and having the underlying database connection externally managed
> actually breaks the transaction support within Jackrabbit.
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message