Yes, we should probably add a line to the transaction-type description to the effect that
this element may be ignored in SE environments, which assume RESOPURCE_LOCAL.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marina Vatkina [mailto:Marina.Vatkina_at_Sun.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:52 AM
> To: persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net; Mike Keith; Linda DeMichiel
> Subject: Re: persistence.xml in Java SE environment
>
>
> Tom, Michael,
>
> Shouldn't this element be ignored in Java SE (along with
> ...-datasourse
> ones) if the provider uses properties for the resource settings? There
> is no value in specifying RESOURCE_LOCAL in this case.
>
> Mike, Linda, what do you think?
>
> thanks,
> -marina
>
> Tom Ware wrote:
> > Michael and Marina,
> >
> > Michael is right. Java SE examples should be updated to use
> > RESOURCE_LOCAL.
> >
> > -Tom
> >
> > Michael Bouschen wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Marina,
> >>
> >> the <persistence-unit> element in the persistence.xml file has an
> >> attribute transaction-type which defaults to JTA. I think
> this default
> >> is not useful in a Java SE environment, so the persistence.xml file
> >> should explicitly set the attribute to RESOURCE_LOCAL in this case.
> >>
> >> We should update the persistence.xml in the Java SE
> available on the
> >> glassfish "Persistence Example" page. What do you think?
> >>
> >> Regards Michael
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>