db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From JimCrowell37 <JimCrow...@EMail.com>
Subject RE: JPA required?
Date Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:28:30 GMT
Bergquist, Brett-2 wrote
> For your use case, probably not.   JPA is not something that is going to
> solve a database element corruption and in fact with JPA and its normal
> use, you have less control when entity changes are flushed to the
> database.
> Note that if you don't have your database stored on medium that has write
> caching, if the host computer goes down, the database is not going to be
> corrupt; it might not have the latest change, but it will be consistent if
> you are using transactions.

My Derby Database is hosted on my HDD in a /db folder under the Java
Application folder...

>" ... if you are using transactions."
The above phrase made me look at my code to see if I am using transactions.
I wrote the derby software some time ago and I have the following lines of
code but I
do not understand why I did the "conn.setAutoCommit(false)" statement...

            //	Control transactions manually...
            //	NOTE:	Auto commit is on by default in JDBC...

Everything is working fine but I wanted to assure myself that the above
operation is OK.

Many Thanks,

View this message in context: http://apache-database.10148.n7.nabble.com/JPA-required-tp127242p127277.html
Sent from the Apache Derby Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

View raw message