<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 9 Jun 2011, at 20:39, Manik Surtani wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Regarding the comment on transactional versus non-transactional threads mentioned on <a href="https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1137">https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1137</a> - I think the fact that we allow this is a flaw.<div><br></div><div>The approach we are taking with JSR 107 is such:</div><div><br></div><div>1) If a cache is non-transactional, transactional threads accessing the cache throw an exception.</div><div>2) If a cache is transactional, threads must have an ongoing transaction. If not, an exception is thrown, unless:</div><div>3) Auto-commit is configured to be true. In this case, if a non-transactional thread accesses the cache, a tx is started, work done, and the tx auto-committed.</div></div></blockquote><div>+1. This requires an auto-commit option on the cache.</div></div><br></body></html>