G
Geoffp
Apparently conn pooling maintains separate pools for the
same connstring, depending on whther the instance has a
transaction opened on it. The actual connection supplied
depends on the "transaction context"
-Does this only work for COM+ transactions? There seems to
be no way of opening a new conn under an existing
sqlTransaction object?
-to allow a trans to span several objects and methods in
the middle tier, I might open a global trans object and a
global conn, and use them for methods I want to be part of
the transaction(disposing when the trans is complete). All
this would happen within one high-level method.
Has this any downside, other than maintaining state and an
open conn for a while longer?
same connstring, depending on whther the instance has a
transaction opened on it. The actual connection supplied
depends on the "transaction context"
-Does this only work for COM+ transactions? There seems to
be no way of opening a new conn under an existing
sqlTransaction object?
-to allow a trans to span several objects and methods in
the middle tier, I might open a global trans object and a
global conn, and use them for methods I want to be part of
the transaction(disposing when the trans is complete). All
this would happen within one high-level method.
Has this any downside, other than maintaining state and an
open conn for a while longer?