I'm trying to help a user [1] that is complaining that a local database
transaction is used, instead of the JTA transaction as they expect. I
asked them to enable TRACE logging for { org.jboss.jca, org.hibernate,
org.jboss.as.jpa + com.arjuna} and see the "Skipping JTA sync
registration due to
Well it *should* mean that the EM in question was created outside the scope
of a transaction. The JPA spec says that in cases of an
application-managed PC where the EM is created outside the scope of the JTA
txn, the provider should not automatically join the EM to any JTA txn later
implicitly. I
On 08/14/2014 11:59 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Well it *should* mean that the EM in question was created outside the
> scope of a transaction. The JPA spec says that in cases of an
> application-managed PC where the EM is created outside the scope of the
> JTA txn, the provider should not automa
Or you could just ask them ;)
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Scott Marlow wrote:
>
> On 08/14/2014 11:59 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
>> Well it *should* mean that the EM in question was created outside the
>> scope of a transaction. The JPA spec says that in cases of an
>> application-manag
That should read "API contracts should be considered stable within all
releases within a major version". As an example, an application developer
should be able to develop against APIs as available in 4.2 and be able to
drop 4.3 into that application without changes, so long as they rely only
on de
Check out my edits and see if that is better
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Steve Ebersole
wrote:
> That should read "API contracts should be considered stable within all
> releases within a major version". As an example, an application developer
> should be able to develop against APIs as
